Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Housing Improvements

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for improving housing conditions in Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The most pressing need is to improve the condition of the existing housing stock, of which 40 per cent. was built before 1919. Housing improvements have been carried out at record levels over the past four years, and the total capital available for local authority housing will exceed £150 million in the coming financial year.

Dr. Marek: I must thank British Rail for its excellent effort after the points failure at Chester this morning. I missed my connection but was taken to Crewe and the waiting train then arrived early at Euston.
Although it is necessary to repair existing housing stock, the Under-Secretary must realise that local authority new building is far below even his expectation. Can he put forward a programme allowing local authorities to build new houses during the 1984–85 session, over and above any present programme?

Mr. Roberts: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, there has been a long-term decline in public sector house building. For example, during the period of the last Labour Government between 1975 and 1979 there was a decline of about 59 per cent. in local authority house building.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the zero rating of value added tax on alterations and extensions to houses would be a retrograde step?

Mr. Roberts: That is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Anderson: Even though there was a decline in 1979 from the 1974 figures, Welsh people wanting housing definitely want those 1979 figures to be restored. Does the Under-Secretary of State still hold to the view he expressed in September 1982 to the Council for the Principality that, on a conservative estimate, Wales needs 12,000 new buildings each year for 20 years?

Mr. Roberts: That is certainly one way of looking at our housing needs, but the current emphasis is on rehabilitation. I am glad to tell the House that the outlook is nothing like as gloomy as Opposition Members would

have us believe. Since the 1982 Budget, local authorities have received a total of 107,000 applications for housing grants, not all of them qualifying for the enhanced rate. About 69,000 have been approved and 43,000 have been paid.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if councils such as Newport were to speed up the sale of council houses, more funds would be available for home improvement grants?

Mr. Roberts: We are dependent on progress with rehabilitation and, in housing generally, on the sale of council houses. The added benefit is that we shall increase the number of home owners. I am glad that since 1979 the proportion of home owners in Wales has increased significantly.

Mr. Wigley: Given the emphasis that the Under-Secretary claims he is giving to renovation, how does he explain the fact that thousands of people in Wales who expected to obtain improvement grants this year must wait four, five and six years before they obtain the money that is badly needed to improve their homes?

Mr. Roberts: As usual, the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his position. Exaggeration has never proved a case yet. Many authorities are readjusting their policies in view of the announcement of their housing allocations for next year. I have already given the figures. of the 107,000 applications for grant, 69,000 have been approved and 43,000 have been paid.

Mr. Hooson: Will my hon. Friend estimate what proportion of the houses that were classified as unfit in 1980 are no longer unfit as a result of the excellent improvement grants?

Mr. Roberts: The 1981 survey showed that there were about 91,000 unfit houses. About 40,000 repair grant applications have been approved, so we have made an impact, which will show up in the next housing survey.

Mr. Geraint Howells: 'Will the Minister inform the House why local authorities in Wales built fewer private houses in the public sector in the 1980s than in the 1970s?

Mr. Roberts: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means, but I think that he was referring all the time to the public sector. It is entirely up to the local authorities whether they build, but it seems fairly clear, looking at the last decade, that they, like us, are moving towards rehabilitation. For example, today I have approved three new enveloping schemes to be carried out by Cardiff, Rhondda and Ogwr district councils, under which 443 houses in urgent need of attention are to be enveloped.

Mr. Raffan: While housing unfitness is principally a private sector phenomenon, does my hon. Friend agree that council house maintenance is a very important responsibility of borough councils, and that, if such maintenance had been carried out properly in the past 20 or 30 years, boroughs such as mine in Delyn would not now have to spend upward of £1 million a year on extremely expensive rolling programmes of improvements?

Mr. Roberts: If my hon. Friend looks at an answer that I gave at a previous Welsh Question Time he will see that local authorities have spent significant amounts on


repairing their dwellings. He will also know that the Housing and Building Control Bill introduces a right to repair that will enable council tenants to carry out repairs themselves and claim reimbursement from their landlords.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Under-Secretary understand that more than 3,000 skilled building operatives and tens of thousands of construction workers in Wales are out of work? Is it not the case that his programme offers them no chance of work?

Mr. Roberts: Our housing programme, with expenditure of about £150 million, is a significant programme, and should give employment to many unemployed people.

Severn Crossing

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received, pursuant to the decision to survey the requirement for a second Severn crossing, relating to such a second crossing; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): Following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 7 February about a study of a second Severn crossing, I have received representations from the Welsh office of the Confederation of British Industry, other commercial interests and local authorities. Those clearly show a welcome for my right hon. Friend's announcement, and I know that those sentiments are widely shared in Wales.

Mr. Adley: I confirm the latter point in my hon. Friend's comments, but in view of the problems that we seem to be having, not just with the Severn bridge but, recently, with Hammersmith bridge, both of which are road bridges, and in view of the lack of problems with rail tunnels, including the old one under the Severn, will my hon. Friend assure the House: that a tunnel alongside a bridge will be considered as a possibility? Secondly, has he cleared his mind of any possibility of the second crossing being a rail crossing, and might it be possible to combine rail and road in one crossing?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: As the House will know, the terms of reference of the feasibility study are being drawn up with all speed, and they will be announced in the not-to-distant future. A two-year timetable was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The question of a tunnel will be taken into consideration. I know my hon. Friend's addiction to railways, and I commend him for that. All factors will be taken into account before the final terms of reference are decided.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman want to see a second crossing of the Severn?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is no doubt about the Government's commitment to maintaining a first-class crossing of the Severn into Wales, in the interests of the Principality in general and of south Wales in particular.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the terms of reference will be as wide as possible and will embrace the alternative mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), and will even contemplate the possibility of a barrage?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can give an assurance that the terms of reference will be wide, but I must make one proviso clear. We do not wish to delay the study, and therefore the barrage must stand or fall on its ability to generate electricity. That is the first priority. Other than that, it will be possible to take it into account in arriving at our conclusion.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the ratio in 1978.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The ratio was 16.5:1 in January 1983 compared with 17:1 in January 1978.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a satisfactory improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio? Does he think that they are reflected in improving standards in secondary schools?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I think that the trend is satisfactory, but I stress that the pupil-teacher ratio, although important, is only one factor in improving standards. Generally we must always seek further improvements in standards, and improvements in the pupil-teacher ratio can contribute to that.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio stems largely from the reduction in rolls? Will he further accept that the Government's public expenditure programme will eventually mean that standards in Welsh schools will fall and that the pupil-teacher ratio will get worse?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Falling rolls are obviously a factor, but they are not the only one. The allocation of resources is a matter for local education authorities, and there is no substitute for good management, which also plays an important part in the improvement of standards.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of youth training scheme places in Wales will be funded under mode A and mode B, respectively, during 1984–85.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in 1984–85 it plans to fund 74 per cent. of the youth training scheme places under mode A and 26 per cent. under mode B.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 30 per cent. reduction that he is requiring the MSC to impose on mode B schemes will mean that 90 highly qualified staff will be sacked in the counties of Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan this month? Is he also aware that last month there were 370 wholly unemployed young people in the Rhymney valley and not one unfilled vacancy? Will the Secretary of State press the MSC to ensure that there is no cut in mode B schemes, at least until the commission is satisfied that adequate alternatives exist under mode A schemes?

Mr. Edwards: The choice is one for the MSC, as I made clear in the Welsh day debate. However, the hon. Gentleman's point would be more effective but for the fact


that in Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan there is an increase in the proposed provision of mode B schemes — from 2,491 to 2,520 approved entrants. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Rhymney valley The ratio there is 56 per cent. mode A to 44 per cent. mode B, because the MSC is clearly taking account of local conditions, Where there is a shortage of employer-led schemes, it is adopting mode B.

School Visits

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many school visits he made in 1983; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: During 1983 I made seven such visits, four to secondary schools and three to primary schools.

Mr. Jones: As about 20,000 people work in the school meals service in Wales, and as the service is to be affected by public expenditure cuts and ratecapping, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the price of school meals will not escalate sharply, that there will be no job losses in the school meals service and that there will be no cuts in the hours worked by those employed in the service?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can give no such guarantees, but I shall bear in mind the points behind the question and keep a careful watch on the circumstances.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio has been matched by an equally dramatic reduction in the number of unqualified school leavers, down from a high of 13·4 per cent. under the last Labour Government to 8·3 per cent. now, and an increase in the number of school leavers going on to further and higher education, up from 23 per cent. under the last Labour Government to 29 per cent. now?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: My hon. Friend's question is a clear demonstration that standards are improving and that the Opposition's allegations that our cuts are harming education are entirely unjustified.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that his recent answers to me show that the training and updating of head teachers is a major contribution to the development of curricula within schools, and is he satisfied that his Department's funding activity in Bristol meets the needs of the training of head teachers in Wales?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: This is an important matter, and we are making every effort to introduce schemes in Wales that will help head teachers, because they are vital to the success of a school.

WINvest

Mr. Mark Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the progress of WINvest since it inauguration in April 1983.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: WINvest has made a very positive start to its operations. The different bodies involved in inward investment have been welded together into a unified, effective and professional organisation, well equipped to sell the considerable attractions that Wales has to offer to potential investors.

Mr. Robinson: How many overseas companies have recently shown an intention to set up in Wales, how many

overseas companies have recently shown that they are expanding their operations in Wales, and how many jobs are involved?

Mr. Edwards: As I said in the recent Welsh day debate, since 1 April, 18 overseas companies have announced their intention to set up in Wales, providing nearly 2,000 jobs. In the same period, 10 existing overseas companies have announced expansion projects, creating a further 350 new jobs and safeguarding almost 2,000.

Mr. Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in his recent study, "Overseas Investment in Wales", Professor Glyn Davies of Cardiff said that the most important consideration for these companies was the availability of regional development grants? In view of the Government's intention to save millions of pounds by cutting these grants, does not the Secretary of State fear that there will be less investment in Wales in the future?

Mr. Edwards: Undoubtedly, regional policy has a part to play, and we shall continue to have an effective regional policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been considerable waste of grant on large capital projects that would have gone ahead in any case. I speak as the Member for a constituency that has benefited considerably in that respect because of the large number of oil refineries.

Schools (Modern Languages)

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what actions his Department will take in the light of Her Majesty's inspectors' education survey 11 on the teaching of modern languages in schools in Wales.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The consultative paper "Foreign Languages in the School Curriculum" aroused great interest and much discussion. The findings of the Wales survey will further inform efforts to formulate, for the first time, a national policy for foreign languages in schools.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend as alarmed as I am at the low standards that were revealed in this report on language teaching in Wales? Does he agree that it shows the disservice to the young people in Wales in economic as much as in cultural terms?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is room for some disquiet and for further efforts to improve the position. The report brings out clearly the importance of head teachers and of heads of departments in the matter.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister draw to the attention of teachers in Wales the valuable work that can be achieved through language awareness courses and the need to extend language awareness across the curriculum, not just through teaching languages but in terms of subject areas?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: That is a helpful suggestion and I shall look into the matter.

Farming

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he makes of the economic prospects for farming in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The measures needed to reduce surpluses and control Community expenditure on


agriculture are bound to affect farming incomes in Wales as elsewhere; but I believe that Welsh farmers are well capable of adapting to the changes.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State not aware that many Welsh dairy farmers are very worried that the agricultural and horticultural development scheme will not have a roll-over provision for them for the six months from 1 January? Given that many farms in Wales are mixed, how will it be possible, for the purposes of the scheme, to differentiate between the dairy farming and the non-dairy farming elements in respect of investment in soil improvement, fencing and general work of that type?

Mr. Edwards: At the moment, existing schemes are being rolled over because agreement has not been reached on future provision. In view of the complications of the current negotiations, it is a bit early to speculate exactly how farmers will have to deal with matters which have not been finally settled.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State in favour of introducing a quota system to dissuade Welsh farmers from producing extra food from the land?

Mr. Edwards: I am certain that a large number of Welsh farmers and farming interests believe that a quota system may be the best way to protect individual farms in a time of change. The current negotiations in Europe lead one to the conclusion that some form of quota system may emerge, even though Her Majesty's Government have advocated a system based on prices. It is right that we should be discussing with the unions the form that a quota system should take.

Mr. Hooson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great satisfaction in the hill areas of Wales at the Government's success in obtaining an extension of the less-favoured areas definition?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the announcement that we have been successful in the negotiations on marginal land will be widely welcomed. It has been fought for over a long period and I know that it will make a considerable contribution once we have been able to introduce the new arrangements.

Mr. Cambell-Savours: Should farming prospects in Wales be so dependent on the loss of historic sites as outlined in the article in The Guardian last Friday, in which a journalist bitterly attacked the Secretary of State for Wales for allowing the uncontrolled decimation of historic sites in Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer from the Dispatch Box the accusations levelled in that article, because it is farmers who are benefiting?

Mr. Edwards: There is no truth in the suggestion that there is uncontrolled decimation of sites. The article is riddled with inaccuracies. Certainly there is no truth in the suggestion that farmers are profiting in this way. It is an absurd invention, and I reject it entirely.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the growing unease in the dairy sector in Wales, especially amongst those farmers with a dependence on the milk cheque from, say, only 40 or 50 beasts? Does he have in mind any major initiative by his Department? Does he accept that there is a parallel between the dairy farmers and those who distribute the milk and that in the latter case many thousands of jobs ultimately are at stake?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the concern. I represent a very large number of milk producers. I have been speaking extremely frankly to them about the changes that will be needed. But they understand the need to deal with a situation in which we are producing surpluses at excessive cost, and many of them will be beginning to look at their farming systems to see whether they can reduce their input costs.

Pig Industry

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the state of the pig industry in Wales; and what measures he plans to deal with them.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have received representations from both farming unions in Wales and many producers about the state of the pig sector. Support arrangements for the industry are currently being considered as part of the 1984–85 common agricultural policy price negotiations.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate any improvement in this sector in the months ahead?

Mr. Edwards: It is always rash to forecast trends of that kind. As my hon. Friend knows, at the level of the European Community we have pressed for the early introduction of aids for private storage when the pigmeat market has shown signs of weakening, and we have secured the reintroduction of such aids. We have also pressed for export refunds to be maintained at appropriate levels. We are encouraging and helping the trade to open new markets. All those measures will help the industry.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Secretary of State say how many pig farmers, or, for that matter, other farmers, are unemployed in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: That is not the way in which the system works. People either withdraw from agriculture during a period of change, as many have done during the past 20 or 30 years, or they switch to other forms of agriculture in which they can make a profit. We have an efficient industry which, consistently over a long period has reduced the number of people employed and increased productivity.

Countryside Commission (Meeting)

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh committee of the Countryside Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I met the chairman of the committee on 22 February to discuss national park matters.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad to hear that that meeting has taken place. Can the Minister tell us whether, in his discussions with the chairman, the consultants' report on the so-called efficiency of national parks was discussed? Can he assure the House that no crude standards will be applied to national parks, in particular to the essential study centre at Tan-y-bwlch in my constituency, which is threatened by the alleged efficiencies proposed by the consultants?

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The Countryside Commission, which sponsored the report jointly with the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, is now awaiting the responses of the national park authorities and the local authority associations. The Countryside Commission committee for Wales will be fully involved in considering those responses and in making recommendations to the Government. I have noted the specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. At the last meeting, in the light of what I have just said, there was no real purpose in having an in-depth discussion on the subject, because the review is coming forward and we shall have further consultations.

Welsh Language

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what financial provisions were made by the Welsh Office for support of the Welsh language in (a) 1979 and (b) 1983; and whether this represents an increase after taking into account pay and price factors.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Welsh Office support for the Welsh language has increased substantially in real terms since 1979. Grants totalling £709,071 were approved in 1979–80, and £2,666,236 will have been allocated in 1983–84.

Mr. Hooson: Do not those figures demonstrate the absurdity of current allegations about cuts in financial support for the Welsh language? Can my hon. Friend estimate how much of the budget for the coming year will be applied to computer-related studies?

Mr. Roberts: On the latter point, I assure my hon. Friend that some of the grants offered in the education sector reflect the growing importance of computer-related studies. Authorities will be able to purchase equipment and to prepare and translate a variety of programmes in Welsh. I cannot quantify the exact figures, but my hon. Friend is right when he says that this support makes nonesense of any talk of cuts. Moreover, it makes nonsense of the exhortation that we had recently from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the president of Plaid Cymru, on St. David's day, to his followers to take action outside the law.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Minister prepared to give financial support to those local education authorities in Wales which are now prepared to start teaching certain subjects through the medium of the Welsh language in schools which are not designated as bilingual but are regarded as the counterpart of bilingual schools, the so-called English comprehensive schools, and for more Welsh teaching in those schools which have not been segregated into bilingual and English?

Mr. Roberts: Local authorities are at liberty, and are in fact encouraged, as are other bodies, to apply for section 21 grants; and we give every application the requisite consideration.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the promotion of the Welsh language relies largely on the enforcement of the law in this respect? Does he accept that those who call for breaches of the law, like those hooligans who demonstrated against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the other day, do much to damage the cause that they seek to serve?

Mr. Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those who try to advance the cause of the language by denying free speech, as some did to my right hon. Friend at the weekend, do great harm to the cause that they seek to serve and undermine much of the good will that exists towards the language.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, after the Conservative Government broke their election pledge on the fourth channel in 1979, the only way to remind them of that pledge was for people to break the law by refusing to pay their television licence fees? Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to repudiate what was said by two of his hon. Friends this morning—that the mere £2 million that has been spent on the Welsh language is a waste of money? Is that the attitude of Conservative Back Benchers in England?

Mr. Roberts: We are giving over £2 million towards the Welsh language, which is four times as much as was given by our predecessors, whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
The hon. Gentleman's other points simply confirm our opinion that, in supporting those who attacked my right hon. Friend, he has proved himself a bad egg and as rotten to the core as much of the stuff that was thrown at my right hon. Friend.

Local Government (Employees)

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the increase in local government employment in Wales since September 1981; and what the cost of this increase represents in terms of rate poundage.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between September 1981 and September 1983, the most recent date for which figures are available, local government manpower in Wales, in terms of full-time equivalents, rose by 763 or 0·6 per cent. However, between September 1982 and September 1983 there was an increase of 1,140 or 0·9 per cent. full-time equivalents. Had this increase not occurred, ratepayers would have saved up to £15 million, equivalent to 5½p in rate poundage terms.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that extremely worrying upward trend in local government employment is costing jobs in manufacturing industry and that counties such as Clwyd are destroying wealth-producing jobs in the private sector by increasing their staff by 413 in the last quarter? Does he further agree that if those increases in local authority staff in Wales had not taken place, instead of rates increasing in the current financial year they could have fallen; and can he tell the House by how much?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend about the damage that is being done. If Clwyd's manpower had not been increased by 1·5 per cent. between September 1982 and September 1983, which was well above the average, the county council's rate increase might well have been down to a record 5 or 6 per cent., or even lower, instead of the 9·5 per cent. that it now proposed.

Mr. Rogers: As the Secretary of State and his Ministers are projecting a fairy godfather image this afternoon, will he tell the House in what areas that increase in local government employment took place?

Mr. Edwards: They vary widely from local authority to local authority. One of the arguments put forward last


year was that it arose from the increase in house improvement grants and that much of it came from the county councils.

Mr. Barry Jones: There are 25,000 people out of work in Clwyd. How many people are out of work in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: That does not arise from this question, but more people are out of work in Clwyd and in Wales because of the high rating decisions by local authorities.

Elderly Persons (Accommodation)

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if the availability of part 3 accommodation for the elderly in Wales has kept pace with the increase in numbers of potential clients for the residential service.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: There is no generally agreed definition of the potential clientele for residential care. However, since 1979 the population aged over 65 in Wales has increased by some 4·5 per cent., while the total number of residential places provided for elderly people in local authority, private and voluntary homes has increased by almost 16 per cent.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware of the great difficulty of local authorities in receiving patients who have been discharged from geriatric hospitals? There are not enough rooms in local authority homes for people who have been discharged. The result is a log-jam and people have to be kept in geriatric wards, which excludes others who need urgent admission.

Mr. Roberts: Yes, I am aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That is why we have always stressed to local authorities the continuing need for available resources to be concentrated on those services which support people in their homes in the community. Furthermore, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the county authorities have increased their spending on personal social services for the elderly from £22 million in 1978–79 to £40 million in the current year, so they are doing their best to tackle the kind of problem to which he refers.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that the cuts that his Department has imposed on local authorities make it very difficult for social services departments and healh authorities to cope with the demands of an increasingly elderly population? Does he not recognise that this should be a key area in terms of funding, not just in terms of policy pronouncements?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: It certainly is a key element in both. That is why I said that we had drawn particular attention to the increasing numbers of elderly people and asked local authorities to give them high priority.

Pit Closures

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate on what date he intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the subject of pit closures in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Although I have numerous informal meetings with Mr. MacGregor, I have no immediate plans for an official meeting to discuss pit closures.

Mr. Powell: I regret that the Secretary of State has given me that reply, because since 1979 in my area we

have had the closure of the Caerau colliery and the Coegnant colliery. On 7 January this year the Wyndham Western colliery was closed. The St. John's colliery in Maesteg has geological problems. Is the increase of imported coal one of the main reasons for MacGregor wanting to close collieries, and does it have anything to do with the fact that his banking interests are concerned with the country of origin of the imported coal?

Mr. Edwards: That is a disgraceful suggestion and typical of the sorts of remarks made in the House by the hon. Gentleman. I last met the chairman in December, when we had wide-ranging discussions. As I made clear in the Welsh day debate last week, it will continue to be necessary to close grossly uneconomic pits. I know about the geological problems that have been encountered at St. John's. I understand that the management and unions are considering its future with a view to reporting in the next few weeks. In the circumstances, it would be wrong to speculate.

Mr. Franks: Is the Minister aware that at a recent reception Sir Walter Marshall, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, stated that if the board were free to import coal the price of its fuel could be reduced by 25 per cent., and electricity prices by between 10 and 15 per cent.?

Mr. Edwards: That is the sort of conflicting interest that must be taken into account when considering these matters. I am glad to say that in the south Wales coalfields Aberthaw has been able to take a substantially increased uptake this year, which has meant that there has been a lifting of stocks in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Church Sites (Sale)

Mr. Renton: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham as representing the Church Commissioners whether he is satisfied with the price, speed and purpose with which the Church Commissioners are selling disused and surplus church sites.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. Each case is viewed entirely on its merits, and takes account of planning and pastoral considerations, as well as any practical difficulties that may arise in dealing with churchyards.

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is this not an area in which the Church is very much torn between God and mammon, for is not the impression often given that the Church Commissioners are usually interested only in selling, often after long delays, for the highest price, without any consideration of the purpose to which the disused church or its site will be put? Could he, therefore, give a clearer statement of policy from the Church Commissioners?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Delays are often, although not always, caused by considerations that the House is keen the Church Commissioners shall bear in mind, namely, the architectural merit of the building or of its contents, and finding alternative suitable uses. The Pastoral Measure gives power to the Commissioners to dispose of redundant churches, and their sites, as they


think fit. They are not necessarily bound always to go for the best price, although they must have regard to the dioceses and redundant churches fund's requirements.

Mr. Watson: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just the disposal of old church buildings that can be the subject of delay? Delays can occur in transferring old church primary school buildings for wider community purposes. Will my hon. Friend do what he can to speed things up?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I answer questions here, as you know, Mr. Speaker, only on matters for which the Church Commissioners are responsible. With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the cases he has in mind are matters for the diocese. If he would care to write to me, I shall make sure that his letter goes to the right place.

Mr. Ryman: The hon. Gentleman answers questions only for which the Church Commissioners have direct responsibilities, but is he aware that the Church Commissioners have enormous influence in many spheres? In that capacity, has he any views on the absurd speech made by an obscure junior Minister about the political speeches of bishops?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Of one thing I am absolutely clear. I am not responsible for my hon. Friend's speech. During Lent, I think that one should try to give up something that one would miss rather too much.

Mr. Greenway: It is, of course, Ash Wednesday during this week, so Lent has not quite begun, which makes my hon. Friend's remarks the more interesting.
Would my hon. Friend say for what reasons a church is taken out of use, and whether those reasons have changed over the past 20 years?

Sir William van Straubenzee: It is not possible for me to give a truthful and accurate generalised answer to my hon. Friend about an innumerable variety of different circumstances. However, generally speaking, it is because the church is pastorally no longer required. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind, I shall be happy to do my best to answer his question in more detail.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In relation to the sale of stained glass windows from disused churches, is it not true that Great Britain has developed a formidable trade in the export of what is our heritage? Why does the Church not intervene to prevent those exports and ensure that the stained glass windows are fixed to other buildings in the United Kingdom?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I should indeed be worried if I thought that valuable, ancient glass was not being made use of or put into careful storage. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind, I should be happy to look into it.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend take a little time during Lent to instruct certain people on how to answer questions?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Generally, Ministers are more fortunate because, on the whole, Mr. Speaker, you keep supplementary questions for Ministers rather more under control.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Staff (Overseas Visits)

Mr. Coleman: asked the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, for how long members of the staff of the House have been required to report intended visits by them to some Communist countries to their departmental heads; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beith: Specific guidance to this effect was first given in January 1982.

Mr. Coleman: Was that requirement first reported to the House? Why is it necessary for this limitation to be placed upon the staff of the House; and, further, what special reasons are there which require staff in their own time to be treated differently from right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Beith: The matter was first brought to the attention of the House in a question by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, to which I gave an answer just over a week ago. The purpose of the requirement to inform departmental heads is to ensure that staff have access to advice which may be useful to them when travelling to certain countries where experience suggests that difficulties for them may arise from their status as employees of the House. I am confident that it is in the interests of staff that they should be given that advice.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this ruling applies to former Officers of the House? As the only former Officer of the House who is a Member of the House, why should I not have my summer holidays in Albania without asking the permission of the Clerk of the House?

Mr. Beith: Neither present nor former staff are in any way precluded from visiting any of the countries concerned. The procedure is to ensure that they are given advice that may be useful to them.

Mr. Winnick: Is it thought that the KGB may be trying to find out about our parliamentary procedures — adjourtunents, Question Time and the rest — and that therefore it is necessary to have the type of security arrangements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. Beith: The procedures of the House are well known and readily accessible. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into more detail as to why it is in the interests of the staff that they should have the advice to which I have referred made available to them.

Mr. Cormack: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that it has nothing to do with the fact that the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee represents Cheltenham?

Mr. Beith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Williams: Why has it taken 14 months for the House to be informed of this change? Could we not perhaps limit the intrusion into the liberty of the servants of the House by confining the requirement to those who, historically, have been shown to be most at risk, thereby automatically excluding those of our cleaners, clerks and others who have not attended the best public schools?

Mr. Beith: It is the duty of the Commission to keep such arrangements under review. I shall make it my


business to ensure that such a review takes account of the views expressed by hon. Members today. The right hon. Gentleman may underestimate the significance of working in this building and the status of members of our staff.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Were staff representatives consulted on this matter; and, of so, on what date?

Mr. Beith: As I said earlier, the matter has been known to staff since January 1982. Full opportunities for staff representations have existed throughout that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

National Portrait Gallery

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the arts what discussions the Minister for the Arts has had concerning the construction of a new national portrait gallery on the South Bank.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has had no such discussions yet.

Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that the Greater London council has specifically ruled out the sale of any land on the South Bank for the new national portrait gallery? That being so, will he investigate the use of Battersea power station, or a site in Docklands, for the future development of the national portrait gallery?

Mr. Waldegrave: Originally, the GLC had no objection to the designation of the site as a potential site for the new national portrait gallery. Discussions are at an early stage, and it is for the trustees to consider the possible sites. They are also considering an extension to the present gallery.

Mr. Buchan: Regardless of the site, will the Government publicly confirm that they intend to adhere to their financial obligations and that there will be a new building for the national portrait gallery? Does the Minister agree that the work is at present seriously handicapped?

Mr. Waldegrave: As yet, there is no agreement by the Government. If the trustees come forward with proposals, these will undoubtedly be discussed by the Government within the existing constraints. However, no agreement has yet been reached.

Local Government Reform

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the arts if the Minister for the Arts has now decided how he plans to make up for the anticipated loss of grants to the arts following the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council.

Mr. Waldegrave: As I have recently told the House, my noble Friend is now considering most carefully the many representations made to him during the consultation period. The pattern of funding for the arts in the affected areas after abolition will depend on the outcome of my noble Friend's deliberations.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety of the Bournemouth symphony orchestra and its parent body, Western Orchestral Society, because it has

not been shown the national and international recognition that it deserves in my noble Friend's consultation paper? Will he assure the orchestra that it will not miss out because of any shortfall of public funding resulting from the Government's proposals?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Bournemouth symphony orchestra was not directly involved in the proposals. That is why there was no direct reference to it. If consequential changes to the arts funding affect the Bournemouth symphony orchestra, my noble Friend will take that into account.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that London is the arts capital of the world, that it is a tremendous national asset and that it attracts many visitors to this country? Is he further aware that many of us who strongly support the abolition of the GLC wish to be certain that the arts can continue to flourish in London? Have the Government taken on board the extent of the anxiety on that matter?

Mr. Waldegrave: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government understand the concern, and my noble Friend has made it clear that he will bring forward proposals to meet it.

Mr. Murphy: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many in the home counties also look towards London as their arts capital? Will he also take into account the interests of those living in the home counties, particularly in areas such as Hertfordshire and in my constituency?

Mr. Waldegrave: In so far as the Arts Council and the general taxpayer contribute to the funding of organisations in the London area, those taxpayers are already contributing. However, I shall report my hon. Friend's comments to my noble Friend.

Mr. Cormack: Did my hon. Friend read the leader in The Times on Saturday? Does he accept that many people feel that the Government have made a grand political gesture without thinking through its consequences? Will he ensure that his noble Friend produces a consultative paper when he has had a chance to consider all the various representations that have been made about the decision's implications?

Mr. Waldegrave: I read the leader and thought that it bore all the hallmarks of one that had been produced by a committee, as there were several different strands running through it. It covered most of the issues, which are certainly well known to the Government. However, I believe that my noble Friend will be bringing forward a paper in response to those points.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts is discussing with the chairman of the Arts Council the future of more local funding of the arts in London, in the event of the abolition of the Greater London council.

Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts is presently reviewing his proposals on the future pattern of arts funding in London after the abolition of the GLC. The Arts Council has expressed its views, which will be fully taken into account. My noble Friend will no doubt discuss these views further in his regular meetings with the chairman.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the leader in The Times spoke for many Londoners when


it said that the last thing they wanted in the event of the GLC's abolition was a joint board of councils with power to precept boroughs. for an arts element? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the GLC is abolished, some of the major arts functions should be taken over by the Arts Council? Will he consider the proposal that some of the minor functions could be taken up by the boroughs if the RSG settlement contained some element to cover arts expenditure?

Mr. Waldegrave: If we wanted the boroughs to take on a larger role in arts funding, it would be reflected in their rate support grant settlements. My own view is that the least satisfactory solution for the arts would be a joint board.

Mr. Buchan: How many of the 500 or so representations made on this subject by arts organisations approve of the idea? Has the hon. Gentleman listened to the points made today by Conservative Back Benchers? Is he aware of the anxiety that exists in the theatrical, musical and literary spheres about what is happening in the metropolitan authorities and the GLC? Will the hon. Gentleman pass on the view that no decision should be made before a debate has been held on this issue in the House? Hundreds of people, including Sir Laurence Olivier, Brian Rix, Bruce Forsyth, and even the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), have made representations, so the hon. Gentleman must pay attention to them. There is no reason for going ahead, and all those in the arts are telling him not to do so.

Mr. Waldegrave: The leader in The Times was correct to say that it would be absurd to defend a particular local government structure simply because of funding the arts. I was not very impressed by the signed advertisements produced on behalf of the GLC by a public relations firm. However, if Mr. Roland Freeman needs the money, that is his job. Nevertheless, I certainly respond to the genuine concern felt by both Opposition and Conservative Members, and my noble Friend has made it clear that there will be no intention on the part of any future local government organisation to damage the arts.

Mr. Freud: Irrespective of whether the Under-Secretary of State was impressed by the advertisement, will he place in the Library the 500 or so representations that his noble Friend received so that we can judge their value?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir. In response to other questions, we have said that we will put the list in the Library. It is not right that we should undertake the publication of other people's documents.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts will be having discussions with the Arts Council before bringing forward proposals arising from the arts consultative paper which accompanied Cmnd. 9063.

Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend has regular discussions with the Arts Council about this and other matters.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister provide for the chairman of the Arts Council, if he will not provide them for Members of this House, copies of all the submissions that he has received?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. I think that that would be even sillier.

Arts Body (Funding)

Mr. Freud: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts how many applications the Minister for the Arts has had for consideration as an arts body of national significance to be funded outwith local authorities.

Mr. Waldegrave: Representations have been received from a variety of sources that 12 named performing arts bodies should be added to the list of candidates for central funding in paragraph 8 of the consultation document on the arts. Similar suggestions have also been made for some museum services, but often without naming the particular institutions which would or might be affected.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept that, by having a national list, one is creating a two-tier system in the arts, and that it will be very difficult for a locally funded theatre, museum or art gallery to compete with one which need look only to his Department for support?

Mr. Waldegrave: I suppose that in a sense there has always been a central list. There are aspects that the Arts Council supports. My noble Friend has suggested that there are a number of organisations of such importance that we assume that the Arts Council would want to take responsibility for their support. However, there is real point in what the hon. Gentleman says, and that is why we do not want to extend the list too far.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to an earlier question—

Mr. Speaker: Yes, provided that the hon. Member is not seeking to get an extension of Question Time. In other words, it must be a matter for me, not for the Minister.

Mr. Buchan: I am not seeking to get an extension of Question Time, Mr. Speaker, although that would not be a bad idea. My point of order is about the propriety or otherwise of placing in the Library the details of representations that have been made to the Government. In this case, is it not a fact that every organisation that has made representations would be willing—sadly, none has said that it would not — to have its representations deposited——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman because I think that he is doing what I was hoping he would not do. He must, on a point of order, raise a question that I can answer. It is not a matter for me whether documents are placed in the Library, unless they are papers laid by Act and the like.

Mr. Buchan: That is precisely why I am raising the matter with you, Mr. Speaker. You have the care not only of the interests of Members of this House, but of the practice of the Government in relation to. hon. Members. On this occasion, documents which come from the Government — unless, presumably, they are marked "Secret", and these are not—would be appropriate for depositing in the Library. Without those documents being so deposited, the wellbeing of hon. Members will be at stake, in that the information and knowledge that are necessary for Back Benchers on both sides of the House will not be available. I hope that you, will make the


necessary representations to the Government on our behalf. You have eyes to see and ears to hear. I should be grateful if you would also have a mouth with which to speak on our behalf and have those documents placed in the Library.

Mr. Speaker: The point that the hon. Member raises is not one for me, unless, as I said, he is referring to documents laid under an Act. If the Government voluntarily decide to place in the Library only a list of representations, that is a matter for them.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that you look after the welfare and interests of Back Benchers on both sides of the House? Surely a central part of that interest must be the free and unfettered access by Back Benchers

to information when they are to be asked to make important decisions arising out of a series of Government consultations.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have been to your office on a number of occasions to find a formula by which we might have access to such information. The reason why the Minister will not let us see the information on this occasion is that it does not support the Government's case, either in the arts or in terms of streamlining the cities. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that if you would put pressure on Ministers, so that we could have access to the information, we should be able to come to a considered opinion rather than one based on being kept in ignorance by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am bound by our Standing Orders. I have only limited powers in this respect, and not over the matter that he raises.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Mark Hughes: (by private notice)asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the recent outbreaks of fowl pest, also known as Newcastle disease, and on the steps being taken by the Department to contain and control the outbreaks.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Two outbreaks of Newcastle disease in poultry have been confirmed, the first in Shropshire and the second near Thirsk, north Yorkshire. In accordance with the Government's policy, the poultry in question have been or are being destroyed. Compensation is payable by the Minister and will be reimbursed under insurance arrangements made by the industry.
All possible steps associated with the slaughter policies are being taken by the state veterinary service to prevent spread of the disease, including declarations of infected areas, movement restrictions and tracings. It is not possible at the moment to determine the likely course of the disease.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I apologise to the Leader of the House. I was led to believe that the outbreak near Shrewsbury was in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), but I am now told that it is in his constituency. I apologise for not informing the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to ask a private notice question relating to his constituency.
Is the Minister wholly satisfied that there is no relationship between the two outbreaks? Is she satisfied that there is no external overseas source of infection? Will she undertake to keep the House closely informed of further developments, because only 14 years ago the British poultry industry lost about 44 million head of poultry in such an outbreak? Will she ensure that everything that can be done will be done?

Mrs. Fenner: I most certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that everything that can be done will be done. I am mindful of the industry's good record. Of course this is a matter of concern. Both origin and connection are

under the closest investigation. If necessary I shall come to the House with the latest news because this is a matter of such concern to the House and to the poultry industry.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The chairman of the National Farmers Union poultry committee is one of my constituents and owns a large poultry farm just outside my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that many poultry farmers are concerned in case the outbreaks are directly related to the large number of chickens imported from our European partners? Can the Minister assure us that every effort will be made to ensure that there is no connection between imports from the EEC and the outbreaks of the disease?

Mrs. Fenner: Of course I can assure my hon. Friend that every investigation as to the origin is being and will be made. I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend's constituents. My Ministry will do everything possible to discover the origin of the disease.

Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) for advising me that he was asking this private notice question. As he said, the outbreak is in the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the Leader of the House, but the rest of us in the area are anxious that the outbreak should not spread further. We are grateful to the Ministry for acting so quickly in Shropshire. I spoke today to the county NFU officer, who assured me that the action was swift.

Mrs. Fenner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that we will do everything possible to restrict the outbreaks. Following confirmation of the disease, infected area restrictions were imposed covering a 10 km radius in each instance. The first, in Shropshire, came into effect on 29 February and the second, in north Yorkshire, on 3 March.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is the Government's position on vaccination?

Mrs. Fenner: The general application of vaccination by owners will have to be considered as an option if the slaughter policy is thought likely to fail. Vaccination under Ministry control around the outbreaks is another option. We shall be investigating the outbreaks closely and one hopes that they will not spread further.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected for debate the two amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his hon. Friends.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 20th March 1984.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of the day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted day

7. If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three

hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to adecision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded,

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on the allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on


Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I am not clear about the conventions when an English Member addresses the House on specifically Scottish legislation for the first time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Don't do it.

Mr. Biffen: I am in exactly that position. Time has marched on since I joined the House. Of the 72 current Scottish Members, only the formidable quartet of the right hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) were elected when I first became a Member of Parliament. They flourish still to remind me of my parliamentary childhood. After such a long period of non-involvement, I am not sure whether to count it a fortune or the reverse now to be plunged into a controversy over Scottish rating. I am, however, more than pleased to open my remarks in a mood of measured conciliation.
The Government have given careful consideration to the amendments which stand on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). In a spirit of co-operation and reasonableness the Government are happy to accept those amendments, and I hope that that will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is only a week since I moved a similar motion designed to ensure reasonable progress on the Rates Bill which applies to England and Wales. While there are significant differences between the Rates Bill and the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the aims underlying the two Bills are similar. In view of this, and of the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal in some detail at the end of the debate with the need for the legislation, I hope to be tolerably brief in my remarks about the substance of the Bill.
The Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will help ratepayers in a number of ways. It will enable the grant reductions of individual local authorities, following a general abatement of grant, to be directly related to their overspending. This removes the unfairness of the present system where there is no such link, and it is generally welcomed. It will also enable the grant pressure on high-spending authorities to be increased. Lower expenditure is, of course, the key to lower rates.
The Secretary of State for Scotland already has power to reduce the rates of individual authorities planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure. It is hoped that this power, together with the improved form of grant abatement that I have described, will be sufficient to bring local authority expenditure and rates under control.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that I have not interrupted in any unpleasant way the right hon. Gentleman's extremely careful flow of reading. He was good enough to mention some of the Bill's merits. Has he addressed himself to clause 2? Under that procedure, matters dealing with the allegedly excessive and unreasonable expenditure of individual authorities—perhaps three or four at a time—will all potentially be taken in a debate lasting one and a half hours, and the House will be unable to vote on the respective merits of penalising one authority against another. As the Guardian of the rights of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman really approve of that?

Mr. Biffen: As I wish to encourage brevity, I must reply, "Yes."
If not, the Bill contains a reserve power under which the Secretary of State can set a general limit on the rates of all local authorities. Local authorities will still be free to decide rate levels within the limit and to decide their own spending priorities. It will, however, protect ratepayers from exorbitant rate levels should that he necessary as a last resort.
As with the Rates Bill, this Bill would introduce a statutory requirement on local authorities to consult non-domestic ratepayers before fixing their rates. Non-domestic ratepayers pay more than half the rates but have no say in the level of a tax, which can have a big Impact on their financial operations. This power will ensure that local authorities are fully aware of the impact of rate levels on the wealth-producing sector before they fix their rates in any year.
As housing authorities, district councils may contribute to their housing revenue account from their rate fund. In this way it is possible for them to use rates to keep down the level of local authority rents. Contributions of this kind account for about one third of the rates of district councils. Control of these payments will obviously be of benefit to ratepayers and ensure the more rational planning of housing finance, with the tenant not being unreasonably subsidised by the ratepayer. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to impose a limit on the contributions that local authorities make to their housing account.
The second part of the Bill makes a series of changes to the valuation legislation in Scotland, which will both improve the structure of the system and remove individual anomalies. These measures will be welcomed by many ratepayers.
The Bill received its Second Reading on 5 December, and discussion of the Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee started on Tuesday 17 January. For the first three weeks the Committee sat in the morning only, but following a sittings motion approved on Thursday 2 February, the Committee started to sit both in the morning and in the afternoon. So far, there have been 21 sittings of the Committee, lasting 82 hours in all. Despite these protracted discussions, however, it has so far completed only seven clauses. There are 17 clauses in all, as well as a number of new clauses which have been tabled and have


still to be discussed. All the clauses so far debated have been examined in considerable detail. In particular, clauses 3 and 6, which I think are generally regarded as the most controversial clauses in the Bill, have been discussed for 25 hours and 17½ hours respectively.
I think the House will therefore recognise that the most contentious provisions of the Bill have now been passed and have had very full discussion without any limitation. There are, however, still important clauses to come—those dealing with valuation. Very large numbers of amendments have been tabled to these clauses. It seems clear that without a timetable motion it will not be possible to make orderly progress with the remainder of the Bill. To fail to achieve that progress would be to delay the coming into operation of provisions which the Government consider to be of important benefit to ratepayers.
It is proposed that the fairer method of relating grant penalties to overspend should be used in respect of the 1984–85 financial year. This requires that the Bill receives Royal Assent in the summer, and delays in the Bill will mean delays in this fairer approach to grant abatement. It is proposed also that consultation with non-domestic ratepayers should take place in respect of the 1985–86 budgets of local authorities. If this is to happen in a useful way, the power to require it will need to be available in good time. And these are only two examples. All the provisions of the Bill have a contribution to make to improving the lot of ratepayers, and any delay is to their disadvantage.
In order to ensure that the remaining provisions of the Bill receive the careful consideration they deserve within the remaining time available, I ask the House to agree that the Bill should be reported by 20 March, with Report and Third Reading to take place on one allotted day. Under the terms of the motion before the House, the Standing Committee can meet to consider the Bill for five further days, allowing seven further sittings if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings as at present. Bearing in mind that the Bill has so far had more than 82 hours' discussion in Committee, I am sure that the House will agree that this proposal is not unreasonable.
The Bill has been introduced against a background of continued local authority overspending and the failure of authorities to bring their spending into line with the Government's plans. The people who have suffered are the ratepayers, who have had to cope with massive rate increases. For instance, for two years running Scottish ratepayers saw their rates increase by more than 30 per cent. The Government owe it to the ratepayers to take action, and to take that action without unnecessary delay. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 2(1), leave out, 'Ten o'clock' and insert 'Midnight'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment (b).

Mr. Shore: The fact that today's debate is essentially a re-run of the debate last Wednesday, when the Rates Bill was subjected to a guillotine motion, may enable us to

make shorter speeches than we did then. However, the length of our speeches in no way diminishes the strength of our objection both to the content of the Bill and to the timetable motion moved by the Leader of the House. Like the Leader of the House, this is the first time that I have participated in an essentially Scottish debate, but, unlike him on this occasion, it is a pleasure for me to perform the duty of opposing what I believe to be a monstrous imposition upon the timetable and the possibilities of free debate on an odious measure.
I confess to having listened to the speech by the Leader of the House with considerable disappointment. As on last Wednesday, he has shown surprising insensitivity about the Bill and has failed to recognise its constitutional significance. After all, we are talking about a fundamental change in the relationship between the Government and local authorities, between the powers of Parliament and the powers of elected local councils. Scotland and England have their different traditions, but the freedom of elected councils in Scotland to determine, within a wide area, their own public expenditures, and to take their own rating decisions, is as firmly established as it has been in England and Wales. Set forth in the Bill, now to be guillotined, is a battery of powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I refer to the principal clauses. Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State not simply to report to the House on the alleged overspending and misdemeanours of a single council and to seek to curb it but to bring forward offending authorities in batches to be dispatched in a single debate and upon a single vote. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to deal with whole classes of authorities, under the general power that the Government know they will seek to exercise sooner or later.
The safeguards on the use of that general power was one of the matters raised in the debate last week on the Bill affecting England and Wales. The Secretary of State for the Environment made much of the point that the power could be triggered only if there was an affirmative vote in Parliament. In my remarks I had referred to an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, saying that that was normally after a debate lasting one and a half hours, but the Secretary of State, with his notorious pedantry, sought to make much of the fact that the affirmative order needed the voting consent not only of the House of Commons but of the other place. I doubt whether in practice that makes very much difference. If it does, what a curious commentary it is that the unelected Chamber should be more sensitive to the democratic rights of local councils than the elected majority in the House of Commons.
Be that as it may, one of the few distinctive features of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is that the affirmative order procedure is limited to a proceeding in the House of Commons. If the Secretary of State for the Environment thinks that an affirmative order in the other place really matters, perhaps the Minister who winds up will explain why that necessary additional safeguard for England and Wales does not matter, when it is not available for the legislation affecting Scotland. One thing that we have learnt from the Bill is the practical effects of the transfer of ratemaking from the 65 major councils in Scotland, manned by many hundreds — perhaps 2,000 to 3,000—of councillors, to the Secretary of State.
The Bill says that the manpower implications are an additional 10 bureaucrats in New St. Andrew's house in Edinburgh, to take over the functions of all those elected councillors. I have no doubt that the civil servants involved in decision making will be conscientious and able men and women, but it is ludicrous to imagine that they have the knowledge of the circumstances of the different councils throughout the length and breadth of Scotland that the thousands of elected councillors possess.
The Bill is deeply opposed, as Scottish Ministers and the Leader of the House well know, by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has a right to be taken seriously when it gives its considered opinion on the White Paper and the Bill which is based on it. The Convention said:
The proposals, if implemented, would constitute virtually total control by the Secretary of State of local authorities' expenditure and rate levels, and for the first time the Secretary of State would take complete control of local authority rent levels. Such novel concepts constitute a serious erosion of the democratic basis upon which local government is built and if implemented would, in fact, make local government the administrative arm of central government.
The Government are getting very near to the abolition of local democracy. We have to search far and wide to find any comparison with what the Government are introducing. In France, the centrally-appointed préfets have until recently, dominated the provision of local services. They have been the provincial and local representatives of central Government. Their whole tradition is profoundly different from our own. In England and Wales, we have to look back to the days of Cromwell's Commonwealth, when major-generals were appointed to administer the different regions of England, before we find anything approaching what the Government are doing to the powers of local government.
One heartening feature of last week's debate was the evidence that our criticisms of the Government's attack on local democracy continue to be shared by a significant section of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) put it well when he said,
On the general question of the timetable motion, nothing could epitomise more clearly the perils of the elected dictatorship under which we now work."—[Official Report, 29 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 288.]
In most respects, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes is a strong supporter of the Government.
What makes the timetable motion especially odd, as well as objectionable, is that substantial progress has already been made in Committee. Indeed, the major clauses, dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State in the making of grants, selective ratecapping, general ratecapping and rate subsidies for housing rents, have already been debated and passed. In the 82 hours referred to by the Leader of the House, the seven major clauses of the Bill have been passed. There are important matters in the remaining part of the Bill, but they are not of the order of magnitude of those that have already been discussed.
I can find no explanation of the rush to impose a timetable and a closing date for the Bill except the general tendency towards authoritarianism, which has marked the first phase of the Prime Minister's second term of office even more strongly than it marked the term between 1979 and 1983. It is as though the Prime Minister, contemplating her 147 majority, has been murmuring to herself, "I, as Prime Minister, am the master now"—or is it the mistress now? No one must be allowed to stand in her way. Those who disagree with her in Cabinet are

summarily dismissed. Cabinet government appears to be in partial suspense. Major decisions are made, if not by' No. 10 alone, by small coteries of Ministers, without the knowledge or the backing of full Cabinet.
Just as Cabinet must not be allowed to stand in her way, Parliament, too, cannot be allowed to halt or hinder the Prime Minister's programme. Moreover, Bills are introduced to attack such centres of influence and power as exist in our society outside Parliament. That is why further trade union legislation is being pushed through, why the powers of local government are to be so radically reduced, as they are by this Bill and by the Rates Bill, which was guillotined last Wednesday, and why a whole tier of local government in England is later to be abolished.
We have noted the acceptance by the Leader of the House of our amendments, which I now formally move, and we are grateful to him for that small mercy. We also note the right hon. Gentleman's determination to insist upon the guillotine of this important Scottish Bill. a Bill that affects the practice of democracy in Scotland. Because of that, we shall strongly oppose this timetable motion in the Lobby today.

Mr. Speaker: As we have heard that the Leader of the House has accepted the amendments, it may be for the convenience of the House if I put the amendments now, so that the remainder of the debate may be on the timetable motion, as amended.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: (b), leave out paragraph 7 and insert—

'Extra time on allotted day

7. — (1) On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours. '.—[Mr. Shore.]

Sir Hector Monro: It is usually my luck to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Scottish debates. Therefore, it is a welcome change and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It adds to the geniality of the occasion, but in no way changes my profound disagreement with what the Opposition say. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we have had 21 sittings and 82 hours of debate to pass part I. If, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, now is all plain sailing to the end of the Bill, and that is only a few sittings away, one raises one's eyebrows at the immense number of new amendments that have been put down on part II and part III.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who was mainly involved in tabling those amendments, perhaps does not realise that we have reached the end of part I; if he did not wish to have the timetable motion, he should have pressed on rather more quickly. When one accepts that parts II and III should be wholly acceptable in broad principle by both sides of the House, why should amendments be put down to every dot


and comma in part II? This brings back memories of Lord Ross of Marnock arguing whether the word should be "may" or "shall" or "shall not" or "will not" and the rest of it on amendments that were tabled as dilatory tactics by the Opposition, with no hint that they would speed up progress on the remaining stages of the Bill. That is why I am pleased that we have the timetable motion, so that the Bill can be discussed properly in its later stages.
Under the timetable motion, it would be unnecessary to go on sitting through the night to proceed clause by clause, one every four of five hours. That is not the way for Back Benchers to find out from the Government what clauses stand for. There is no publicity and nobody knows what the Opposition have been doing at 3 am or 4 am. It never gets into the papers, so why on earth do it? Why do not the Opposition take the constructive course of questioning the detail of the issues of the Bill?
It is sadly obvious that the Opposition set out from the start, jollied along by members of the Liberal party, to drag out the proceedings as long as possible. They did so by speaking at great length on the amendments that they put down, with the intention, certainly in their attitude to part I, of preventing the administrative arrangements for 1985–86 from beginning to take place within local authorities later this year. They were obviously prepared to scupper part II if they could to prevent part I coming into operation in time for the local authorities to prepare the administrative work for next year.
I particularly criticise the Opposition's attitude to the parts of part II that deal with valuation, which we would have reached long ago if the hon. Member for East Lothian had not procrastinated and put down an infuriating number of amendments on nothing so that he could drag things out as long as possible.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order, or is the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)?

Mr. Maxton: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise another hon. Member for a legitimate parliamentary practice—tabling amendments to a Bill?

Mr. Speaker: It is very frequently done.

Sir Hector Monro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was going to intervene in my speech.

Mr. Maxton: No.

Sir Hector Monro: That is a major disappointment. It will be surprising if the hon. Gentleman does not pluck up courage before I finish.
In no way have I criticised the tabling of amendments if they were to be debated succinctly and rapidly so that we could get the answers from Ministers about the point of the amendments.

Mr. Dewar: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is complaining about the amendments that led to proctracted debate on part II. Would he like to tell us — he will obviously know, having made the point at such length—how much time has been spent on part II and how

long was spent on clause 7 in particular? That is the only part of part II that we have so dealt with, so that must be the point on which he is resting his case.

Sir Hector Monro: I have been here long enough to know that when out of the blue 50 new amendments are put down to a part of a Bill this is a series of amendments intended to drag out part II as long as the Opposition can.

Mr. John Home Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman has initiated a vicious attack on me for tabling probing amendments, will he answer this point? I realise that he may have been busy with his correspondence last Tuesday evening during a sitting of the Committee, but he may have noticed that two of the amendments about which he is complaining at such length were probing amendments that were answered relatively satisfactorily by the Solicitor-General for Scotland and disposed of in a matter of minutes. What is wrong with that?

Sir Hector Monro: Two out of 200 is not a bad start, but there are still 198 to go.
I am pleased that we are discussing this motion, because those who have tabled amendments to part II and new clauses will have an opportunity to have them debated in the next sittings. They will be properly discussed in a brief and respectable time and we can hear the Minister's answers and then decide whether to proceed with the amendments. If we did not have a timetable motion such as this, those of us who have put down amendments and take seriously the valuation provisions in part II would not have an opportunity to raise the matter in Committee.
Many of the issues in part II are vital, and I hope that discussion of them will give the Minister an opportunity to spell out the very important changes proposed by the Government for the valuation of sports stadia and race courses in Scotland, which at present are treated extremely severely when compared with their opposite numbers in England and Wales. I should have thought that all those issues would be of interest to the Opposition, especially those right hon. and hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies with such stadia as Ibrox, Parkhead, and Hampden Park, whose rates are double or even treble those of equivalent size stadia in England. I should have expected right hon. and hon. Members to be eager to hear the Minister spelling out the procedures to be adopted. The opportunity to do that in the near future must please them and make them look forward with keen anticipation to the discussions that we are about to have.
There will also be valuable opportunities to move amendments about amateur sports clubs, mandatory derating and other subjects affecting, for example, the Royal Highland Agricultural Society which I should have expected hon. Members on both sides of the House to want a chance to discuss in the timetable programme. We shall also want to have a reasonable period to debate the new clauses dealing with a number of these issues.
When we deal with valuation we shall also have a chance to discuss such matters as caravan sites and reed beds. Perhaps the Opposition are against reed beds. But even it they are not against the Government on valuation, we know that basically their opposition is to part I. Here again, with their tactics of spinning out our discussions of the Bill, the Opposition have shown that they are against the ratepayers in Scotland, and for the high-spending local authorities. They are against the interests of the ratepayer,


the industrialist, commerce and shopkeepers. They have been thrown aside by the Opposition, who want only, for doctrinaire reasons, to stand up for certain high-spending local authorities.
The Opposition appear to think that a timetable motion is a new idea. They forget the Transport Bill of 1967, on which Mrs. Barbara Castle brought in a timetable after only 20 sittings and 70 hours — far less than this Committee has been sitting. She was prepared to timetable a Bill which had 123 clauses. The precedents come from the Labour party of yesteryear, yet the Opposition pretend today that they are against timetables.
Finally, I suggest that it is important for the House to consider fairly soon the valuable suggestion by other hon. Members in recent years that we should think again about our procedures generally. It is obvious that the passions felt by the two sides of the House in timetable debates are not what they used to be. I can remember when a timetable debate was a great occasion. Today, we have a relatively empty House, because the passions are no longer there. It is accepted that we must timetable some Bills if we are to make progress, whichever Government are in power. The sooner that the possibility is looked at in the broadest terms, the better. If it can be done, an informal timetable should be drawn up for every Committee and Report stage so that we can make reasonable progress at reasonable hours and right hon. and hon. Members can attend to their duties on Select Committees and other Committees of the House in which they are involved.
All in all, the Government have adopted the right course in introducing this timetable motion so that the Bill can be discussed fully in the remaining sittings of the Committee that have been agreed by the Opposition and the Government and so that we can have full answers from the Minister on the important issues that we raise. I support the Government strongly, and I want to make certain that we all get a fair crack of the whip in the remaining sittings of the Committee.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is in danger of getting into the habit of being put up by the Government to give a respectable front to some of the exceptional measures that they are trying to put through the House. In recent Scottish debates he has been called early to make the Government's case in the hope that the real skulduggery behind the scenes will not be seen. The hon. Gentleman said that as there was no publicity for Committees sitting at three or four o'clock in the morning he could not understand why the Opposition insisted on doing it. That seems to say something about the futility of debating Scottish issues in the House.
As the hon. Gentleman said, timetable motions are not new. However, this one is of a different calibre from past ones. This Bill goes to the very heart of the principle of local democracy in Scotland. The circumstances are entirely different from those affecting previous motions for timetabling Bills.
The Leader of the House referred to high-spending authorities, the need to protect ratepayers from exorbitant rate levels, to improve the lot of ratepayers, and so on. To my mind, that is so much hokum. It is entirely different from the Government's intentions.
As I see it, the powers of elected representatives are being eroded. Local councillors will be relegated to the job

of rubber-stamping the decisions of central Government. Even if local councillors cause rates to go through the roof, the remedy for that has always existed and exists now. Electors in Scotland are well aware of that.
Following the rate support grant announcement, I have spent a week in my constituency listening to the great concern and anger expressed about the Government's cuts. We have a special difficulty because of the disadvantaged area that I represent. It is proposed that 20 schools should go. We have 800 miles of roads, but only 80 miles are double tracked. We have the highest level of old-age pensioners per head of the population in Scotland—it is almost double the level on the mainland — but home helps are to go or will be charged for.
All these services are being cut. Despite that, to maintain even meagre services, the local authority has had to increase rates to 149p in the pound—the highest level in Scotland on the poorest area—because of the action of the Secretary of State in not introducing the client group method, not repelling the submissions made to him by other authorities and not allowing the Western Isles council to have the funds that it requires to keep minimum services going. The Nicolson institute, the main school in my area, will be nine teachers short. That is the result of the Government's action. What prospect is there of Munn and Dunning being introduced?
We are arguing in the Western Isles about £1 million or £2 million. In the last week or two weeks people have asked me whether I could get the Argentines to invade the Western Isles so that we may get proper funding from the British Government. Alas, there is no hope of getting anything like that. That is the attitude of the people. We are in desperate straits because of the lack of about £2 million from a Government who are prepared to spend £10,000 million on Trident and who intend to back the Falklands to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, without a word of discussion about it here.
Every clause of the Bill needs debate. It is not for the Government to come here in an undemocratic way to cut down discussion, especially a Government who have no mandate in Scotland. I pre-erupt the Minister in saying, "Nor has my party." However, it is not the Scottish National party which is doing this. It is the Conservative party, which was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate. If that is democratic, I am a Dutchman.
I oppose this intention of cutting short debate, and I shall vote against the Government.

Mr. Michael Hirst: In the dim and distant days when I was a law student, I recall the professor who lectured me in constitutional law speaking about guillotines in a grave manner. I could not have been expected to realise that, had my law professor known what the cantrips would be in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill Committee, he might have changed the view that he held about guillotine motions. Such a draconian power seems justified only if discussions are being stultified in the Committee, but I have sat in the Committee during many long tedious hours, listening to Opposition speeches and views that I considered somewhat frivolous, and about which I shall say something in a moment.
I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading because I believed that it did a number of worthwhile things, and I therefore looked forward to constructive discussion in


Committee. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that rates increases had been one and a half times the rate of inflation during the previous five years, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar) was quick to point out that during that time there had been a reduction in rate support grant. He was right, but that does not account for the fact that the increase in rates has been much more than the amount required to compensate for the reduction in rate support grant.
I welcomed on Second Reading the fact that there was to be consultation with the non-domestic ratepayers——

Mr. Dewar: Oh!

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member for Garscadden may say "Oh", but he is the first to condemn businesses that have closed because they cannot support the rate burden. It confirms how mealy-mouthed the Opposition are, crying crocodile tears about high rates and at the same time deploring the fact that jobs are lost because businesses can no longer pay the rates.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some examples—let us say, five examples—of companies in his constituency or in Glasgow that have gone down and given rates as their reason for going out of business?

Mr. Hirst: I shall do better than that. I shall refer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to the strictures that have been made year in year out by the Glasgow chamber of commerce, and to the fact that on the list of preferred creditors that appear when businesses go bankrupt the local authority is owed substantial sums of money. It is a proven fact that the rates burden on businesses has been a significant destroyer of jobs. If the Opposition cannot see that, it shows how purblind they must be.
On Second Reading, I welcomed the limitation on the amount of rate fund contribution that could go to the housing revenue account. Conservative Members believe that £126 million is a wasteful subsidy, one that penalises all ratepayers, and is completely indiscriminate, in that it does not benefit those who need it.
At the general election, we stated clearly what we intended to do. We had the Second Reading of the Bill, giving furtherance to what we said on the hustings we intended to do. I was always surprised that of all the measures introduced by this Government this Bill has generated less correspondence in my mailbag than any other. I know that the hon. Member for Cathcart will not disagree when I say that I have a substantial mailbag about many different issues, but the only letters that I had on this issue expressed sorrow that the Government were not undertaking a lock, stock and barrel reform of domestic rating, a view with which I have considerable sympathy.
I realise that parts of the Bill are controversial, and they have been hotly opposed in Committee by the Opposition. I accept that Opposition Members find the general power of limitation wholly objectionable. I accept that they do not like the restriction on the contribution from the rate fund to the housing revenue account. When in Committee, I admired the sincerity with which those views were put forward, particularly by the hon. Member for Garscadden,

but despite all the huffing and puffing in Committee, and despite all the long-winded tedious speeches which, in the words of Shakespeare, were
full of sound and fury,
—Signifying nothing",
I do not believe that any local authority has anything whatever to fear if it organises its affairs prudently and sensibly, and with the interests of ratepayers at heart.
Surely the lesson of selective action against the four local authorities last summer proved something to us. We heard from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) how objectionable he finds it that all the selective orders would be brought forward in one debate with one vote. I cast my mind back to my early days in the House, last summer, when we discussed the four selective orders. I remember how the interests of the Opposition waned after the opening speeches, and ground to a halt in the fourth order, when there was no Division and, indeed, no debate on the Opposition Benches. The Opposition may find it objectionable to have one vote on future selective orders, but when they had the opportunity to show their opposition they were found wanting.

Mr. Barry Henderson: On the extent to which the Opposition show genuine concern and opposition to the Bill, has my hon. Friend noticed that twice as many Tories as Opposition Members are present?

Mr. Hirst: Yes, indeed. Being an accountant, I reckon that they are at about 18 per cent. strength. That is even weaker than the whisky that we are served these days. The absence of the 42 Labour Members who tell us, north of the border, how hard they are fighting for the interests of Scotland says it all. I wish that they were fighting rather more strongly this afternoon from the Opposition Benches.
We recognise that the general powers of limitation in clause 3 is a formidable weapon in the hands of the Secretary of State. However, its existence should surely be a deterrent to an unreasonable and irresponsible local authority. I listened with interest in Committee when Opposition Members spoke with venom against that power, until I did some research and found that in 1966, when a Labour Government were presiding over our affairs, they brought in a Local Government (Scotland) Act, section 5 of which gave the Secretary of State the power to reduce a local authority's rate support grant if he thought that it was "excessive and unreasonable." The legislation was introduced, and it remained on the statute book unused for 15 years. Presumably that happened because successive Secretaries of State for Scotland felt that there was no justification for using it. Although clause 3 contains a fairly important power, it is a power that I hope will not be needed, but it is available should a local authority be minded to be unreasonable or irresponsible, or to disregard the interests of its ratepayers.
We on these Benches realise that there are controversial clauses in the Bill. We have lived through very lengthy debates. The Leader of the House spoke of 25 hours on one and 17½ hours on another, in which the Opposition had every opportunity to advance their views and to suggest probing amendments in an endeavour to convince the Committee of the merits of their case. Indeed, during an all-night sitting on 23 February, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who I regret is not present, spoke on amendment No. 79.
I merely instance amendment No. 79 as an example of the sort of time-wasting that my hon. Friends have had to


endure in Committee. That amendment referred to all classes of local authority. We have heard about probing amendments. I do not know what kind of speech the hon. Member for Falkirk, West made at 6 am on that particular morning. I accept that he was tired and emotional about the Bill, but he spoke a great deal of drivel. Indeed, when he started talking about classes of local authority he was able to extend the debate not to classes of local authority but to upper, middle or working-class councils. Then he discussed the aristocratic pedigree of certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends who hold ministerial office in Scotland. I was then convinced that the Opposition's purpose was not to put forward valid probing amendments.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to make personal attacks on other hon. Members without giving notice to them? I happen to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is not here because he has a meeting on the possible closure of a colliery which employs a number of his constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There are conventions and customs that are not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hirst: I did not intend to make a personal attack. I was merely reflecting on the fact that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West took an inordinate amount of time and had to be hauled up by the Chair on successive occasions, much to the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Garscadden, for the woolly and peculiar views that he advanced that day which did not accelerate the Bill's progress.
I felt that we were making progress on the Bill when we reached clause 6. As that was in the Opposition's view the most contentious part of the Bill, I thought that we could look forward to accelerating through the remaining stages, thereby endeavouring to promote the Bill's passage which Conservative Members so actively support. But, alas, arriving from the north last Tuesday, I saw scores of amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I do not know what kind of amendments those are, but if they are probing amendments they are curious. They may well be frivolous amendments. I can only say that the Committee is faced with scores of amendments which do nothing to enhance the legislation.
In amendment No. 157 the hon. Gentleman wishes to delete the words "any official" and introduce "a representative". If the hon. Gentleman wishes to justify himself, I shall be happy to give way. When I looked at those pages and pages of amendments I thought that they were not probing amendments, but merely devices by which Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for East Lothian, could spin out the Committee's work.

Mr. Home Robertson: It would probably have been more appropriate had the hon. Gentleman sought that information in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. Has it occurred to him that there is a distinction between a local authority official and a member of a local authority?

Mr. Hirst: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to his amendment which has not yet been reached? It refers not to a local authority but to somebody that a rating member may wish to bring forward in future. In fairness, I

recognise that the hon. Gentleman has tabled so many amendments that he cannot be expected to recall instantly amendment No. 157.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: rose——

Mr. Hirst: I have not been able to listen to the hon. Gentleman in Committee but I am happy to hear from him now.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He seems to be saying that some frivolous amendments have found their way to the Committee. Does he not agree that he is criticising the Chair for accepting amendments that are not serious?

Mr. Hirst: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am implying no criticism of the Chairman for accepting the amendments. I merely make the point that, having looked through the amendments to see whether they were intended to improve the legislation, I have come to the conclusion that they were not. Of course, that too is a personal opinion.
The Labour party's intention and purpose is to force the Government to impose a guillotine and then to claim some spurious political advantage. Labour Members want to be able to go back to Scotland and say that they have forced the Government to guillotine their measure—that they can only get their legislation through by resorting to a guillotine.

Mr. Maxton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Gentleman has given it all away by shouting "Hear, hear".
That is a spurious political argument. The people of Scotland will see the Opposition's tactics for what they are. When I look at the Labour party's synthetic indignation I merely say that there is widespread general public support for the measure in Scotland. The people of Scotland want to see it on the statute book, and they will support what we are doing this afternoon.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) has sought to trivialise the debate and to challenge the right of Committees to debate the details of legislation. I particularly deplore what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). My hon. Friend cannot be here today because he, and several of his hon. Friends who have constituents who are likely to lose their jobs as a consequence of the closure of Polmaise colliery, are taking part in a meeting in Scotland about that important matter — yet another example of the difficulties that are being forced on many in Scotland by the Government.
This guillotine motion is a completely unwarranted curtailment of debate on a highly controversial Bill—a Bill which is of enormous constitutional significance for Scotland. If Conservative Members who find this so amusing do not recognise that, they may care to compare notes with some of their hon. Friends south of the border who have profound misgivings about identical legislation for England and Wales. A number of Conservative Members found it necessary to vote against those identical!. provisions.
The legislation is unwarranted. May I pray in aid the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) on this


point? On BBC Radio Scotland last Monday morning he saw fit to say — rightly, in my view — that the Committee was making pretty rapid progress. He said that publicly. We all heard him, and I agree. In view of the controversial nature of the material that we are going through, we are making almost indecent haste in our consideration of the Bill. I do not know whether anybody consulted the hon. Gentleman before he made those remarks, but precisely one week later we have a guillotine motion. I do not know whom we are supposed to believe.
The Government's justification is pathetic. The Leader of the House said that we were taking an inordinate time and that an inordinate number of amendments had been tabled. We have heard some fairly spurious points against the Opposition's tactics in the past. We did not debate the first sittings motion, which is some measure of the Opposition's goodwill on the progress of the legislation.
At only the sixth sitting of the Committee, when the Government moved a motion requiring afternoon sittings in addition to morning sittings, the Minister quoted something that I had said on 31 January in the debate on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order, and he has given me notice that he will refer to me again. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be on the same point, so perhaps I might pre-empt what the Minister may be about to say.
On 31 January, I said of the Bill's coming into force:
I am doing all that I can in Standing Committee every Tuesday and Thursday to ensure that that date is delayed as long as possible,"—[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 223.]
The Minister has already raised that point, and I gave him a reply to it in Standing Committee:
That, as any reasonable person would know, was a shorthand way of saying that I hope to delay an ill-considered Bill by means of constructive argument in order to amend and improve it." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 2 February 1984; c. 202.]
If that is not what Standing Committees are for — amendment, improvement and detailed consideration of Bills — why on earth does the House have Standing Committees?
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is correct in saying that a number of amendments were tabled last Monday. Up to that point in the Bill, we had been working one clause ahead of ourselves, and tabling amendments to the next clause to be considered. It struck me that it might have been of assistance to the Minister, and to his officials, if they had had longer notice of amendments. I make no apology for tabling probing as well as substantive amendments. That surely is the purpose of Standing Committees in dealing with legislation.
Since some mud is being flung around the Chamber, I point out that some aspects of the conduct of the Committee proceedings have been deplorable. I am thinking of the 11 silent men. In fairness to the Minister, I suppose that he was not all that silent, but his 10 Back-Bench hon. Friends have been conspicuous by their silence in Committee. Those 11 Conservative Members form the majority on the Committee and they are elected Members of Parliament representing Scotland. When the electorate return Members of Parliament to represent Scotland, they expect them at least to pay some attention to the legislation that will be inflicted on the electorate. Yet 10 Government

Back Benchers sat in total silence, doing their correspondence, and paying precious little attention to what was taking place.
I also deplore the fact that "stand part" debates on two highly controversial clauses—clauses 3 and 6 — were entirely conducted after midnight. That was unnecessary. It would not have been outwith the power of the Government to adjourn the Committee so that those important debates could have been conducted when all members of the Committee were prepared for them, and not tired. It brings no credit on the House if hon. Members are compelled to work 24-hour shifts and expected to apply their minds to detailed argument on controversial points so late in the day—or rather so early in the morning. It is no coincidence that the Government stage-managed the debates so that those that would most embarrass them took place in the wee small hours of the morning when few hon. Members were present.
The composition of the Committee is a matter for some concern. This debate, indeed, may be an alarming example of the superficial treatment that Scottish affairs receive in this Parliament. How on earth Scottish affairs can be fairly treated in the Committee beggars the imagination. The party that received only 28 per cent. of the votes in Scotland managed to obtain 61 per cent. of the seats on the Committee. Conservative Members just sit in those seats and say nothing—and perhaps think nothing, for all we know. Sometimes those hon. Members are not even present in the Committee: they are outside waiting for somebody to shout that a Division is taking place. The 10 silent Conservative members of the Standing Committee might remember that, even if they do not recognise that all is not well with the legislation, a number of their hon. Friends representing England are worried about a similar Bill.
A specific point——

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose——

Mr. Home Robertson: No, I will not give way; I am in mid-sentence.
A specific point that will arise when the House votes on the guillotine motion is the problem confronting hon. Members who are not present. I cite in particular six hon. Members of the House who mysteriously voted in favour of Second Reading of this Bill on 5 December 1983, but voted against Second Reading of the Rates Bill on 17 January. An important constitutional question which merited their voting against their own Government on 17 January must on 5 December have been seen in a different light, or perhaps not understood at all by the right hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), and by the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I do not know what suddenly changed their minds, but, for some reason, they thought that it was all right to abolish the autonomy of local authorities in Scotland, but it was not all right to do the same thing for England. I am fascinated by their past voting conduct, and I shall be even more fascinated to see how some of those hon. Members vote at the end of this debate.

Mr. Forsyth: The explanation may be that there are more irresponsible Left-wing councils north of the border, and that they felt that this action was necessary.

Mr. Maxton: I wish there were!

Mr. Home Robertson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to describe his hon. Friends as irresponsible Left-wingers because, in his eyes, that is what they may be. Nevertheless, I shall be fascinated to note how those hon. Members vote, in view of their record.
This squalid exercise shows pretty outrageous contempt for Scottish interests. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has already said that the Government have no mandate in Scotland, and I make no apologies for making the same point. The Government, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, have no mandate, and no right to control the Scottish Office. It is equally fair to say that the House, in view of the decision taken by the Scottish people in the 1979 referendum, and in subsequent general elections, has a pretty tenuous mandate to legislate on local government in Scotland. Local government should have been devolved to a Scottish Assembly. The people of Scotland specifically voted for that measure, yet a totally unrepresentative Secretary of State for Scotland now seeks draconian and unwarranted powers from the House. The people of Scotland will draw their own conclusions from this state of affairs in due course, but what the House is witnessing today is a pretty despicable exercise.

Mr. Gerald Malone: Both you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be indebted to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for giving us a clear example of one of his Committee speeches. It was exactly according to form—nothing to do with the matter in hand and almost completely related to devolution and the spurious argument about the Scottish mandate. That says something for what has taken place in Committee on this legislation. It became increasingly clear a short while ago that some kind of complicated political gavotte was being performed in Committee. There was a change from the original mood that prevailed in Committee, when there seemed to be a genuine chance of making progress with the legislation. Early last week, we were swamped with an enormous number of amendments, which I believe—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst)—were designed to obstruct the proceedings.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for giving me notice of a matter that I know will be raised later. In a radio interview I mentioned that there was no guillotine motion on the Scottish rate-capping legislation, whereas there was one on the English rate-capping equivalent, because progress was being made. The hon. Member for East Lothian perhaps put something of a gloss on my remarks and took them further than I did, but at that stage progress was being made and was to be welcomed.
Reference has been made to the fact that there was only a short debate on the first sittings motion. Despite the fact that I have been a Member of the House only since June last year, I have worked through one or two Standing Committees. One of them was the Standing Committee on the Telecommunications Bill. I know all about sittings motions. The sittings motion on that legislation lasted for two sittings of the Committee. When I discovered that the sittings motion on this legislation went through relatively

quickly, I thought that it was a declaration of good intent. Government supporters on the Committee now see that that was perhaps a fond hope that has not been realised.
I believe that what we are seeing does not come gladly to the heart of the hon. Member for Garscadden. To be fair to him, in Committee he seemed to find filibustering distasteful. That distaste is not apparently shared by many other members of the Committee. I believe that it is with genuine regret that the hon. Gentleman has to turn to the devices of filibustering and raising irrelevant points to keep the discussion going. From the Opposition we are seeing a response to the legislation that must mirror the response that they gave to the English legislation, which required a guillotine a short while ago. I can almost hear the call for them to keep up their macho image to match that of their English colleagues. They cannot go to their Scottish constituencies to hear the question, "English Members have forced a guillotine. Why are you not doing the same?" I am certain that that attitude has made this guillotine motion necessary. The Opposition are forcing this motion on the Bill today. The blame lies fairly and squarely with them, because they have changed their attitude from one of being relatively constructive to one that made a guillotine motion necessary if the measure was ever to see the light of day.
I speak as a relatively new Member of the House. I hope that, in the unlikely event of appearing on a Committee in the role of a member of Opposition, I would not adopt their attitude. I am sure that Conservative Members would adopt a more constructive role, as they did when in opposition.
I find it distasteful and difficult to explain to my constituents the performance that we go through in Committee. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who expressed the hope that there could be a new approach to the way that we debate legislation in Committee. I find it difficult to explain why we must go on into the early hours of the morning. When my constituents say that they have read Hansard, I find it hard to explain why we have to listen to so much irrelevance and points which border on being out of order, and Members have to be stopped because they wander off the point. It is something that my constituents do not understand and it brings the House into disrepute. If we are to retain our credibility, it is a point to which we will have to address ourselves.
The people of Scotland want the legislation. They need it to protect them from pernicious rate rises and for all the other benefits that it will bring. They need it to provide for consultation. The Opposition are not debating constructively; they merely wish to deny the Scottish people those benefits. My view has changed for that reason. I consider it necessary to have a guillotine not just because progress is in danger of coming to a halt, but because all the amendments tabled by the Opposition are designed to obstruct. For those reasons, I support this guillotine motion. The motion is unwelcome, but the Opposition's actions have made it necessary.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I did not have the good fortune to be selected from the Opposition to participate in the few short hours that the Committee has sat. There was keen competition from the Opposition to serve on the Committee.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: If there was such keen competition, why were Opposition Members such poor attenders?

Mr. Ross: That type of intervention raises the question as to whether we should give way when we are having a serious debate. I have said that I am not on the Committee, and therefore I could not begin to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I am sure that those of my colleagues who may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will respond to the point. I have had the misfortune to listen to speeches from the hon. Member and he has never impressed me as someone I would want to hear, whatever he was talking about, except, perhaps, the brand of economics that is peculiar to one small part of Fife.

Mr. Norman Buchan: And Chicago.

Mr. Ross: And Chicago, as my hon. Friend said.
It is important that those of us who could not serve on the Committee should be able to make one or two points in support of our colleagues. My colleagues, the people whom I represent in Dundee and I do not believe that the Bill has had the airing, and the interest shown in it, that it merits. We are dealing with the rhetoric of a Government who have done little to help Scottish ratepayers. When they sought the support of the electorate at two general elections they claimed strongly that they had ratepayers' interests at the forefront of their mind, and yet they have failed miserably to find some way of responding to that claim. They have tried to turn the spotlight on to the local authorities and blame them for everything. The Government have tried to absolve themselves from the responsibility of—as they claim—reforming rates. The guillotine motion is the culmination of that.
Since they came to power in 1979, the Government have persistently increased the statutory duties of local authorities while savagely reducing the finances available to the local authorities to carry out those responsibilities. When those local authorities refused to cut the services as the Government wanted and were not prepared to accept the reduction in central Government support in an attempt to protect those services, the Secretary of State blamed them once again.
My local authority has had the misfortune to catch the Secretary of State's eye once or twice since 1979, and the people of Dundee have not forgotten his attempts to attack services in Dundee. The theme underlying this legislation and all the other legislation that the Government have introduced is to weaken all levels of local government. They do not believe in local government because they do not control it, which is why they have introduced the legislation. If the Government had the support in Scotland that Opposition Members can claim to have, this measure would not have seen the light of day. That is the underlying reason for the legislation. They have failed to impress the local electorate because it is too sophisticated for some of the nonsense that has come from Tory party Central Office and, therefore, it has consistently refused to accept them at local government level.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In the extremely unlikely event of Labour Members being able to form a Government, will he tell me what their reaction would be if Tory-controlled local authorities were to go on a spending spree and drive up

their expenditure? If his party were in power, would it stand idly by and allow them to claim more and more resources from the Scottish Office budget?

Mr. Ross: It will be the responsibility of the next Labour Government to encourage local authorities to increase spending. If they do not, the disaster of the last four years and of the next two or three years — depending how long the Government last—will be such that the electors of the next Labour Government will demand that the Government grant that freedom to local authorities.

Mr. Hirst: Socialist profligacy.

Mr. Ross: That is not Socialist profligacy. It shows a desire to provide services where they are best looked after — at local government level. The Labour party has always had respect for local government and for the right of local authorities to determine the level of rates, support and services in their areas.

Mr. Hirst: rose——

Mr. Ross: You would not be happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I delayed the debate too long, because many of my hon. Friends are anxious to catch your eye.
Opposition Members sought to argue the legislation line by line, clause by clause and comma by comma. The Government, who claim to be anxious to protect ratepayers, have made it clear by their withdrawal of the rate support grant that they are responsible for forcing up rates. There is no better evidence of that than the debate that is taking place tonight.
In approximately two hours the honorary treasurer of Dundee district council will announce the rates for the area. When we compare the two political parties which have controlled Dundee district council recently, we see which party has been irresponsible in local government. In 1980, the Conservative honorary treasurer robbed the general fund balance of more than £3,500,000 artificially to hold down the rate in a desperate and wholly irresponsible election gimmick. That election gimmick failed to confuse the sophisticated electorate of Dundee, because a few months later it kicked out that Tory administration and returned by a handsome majority a Labour administration. It has sought to look after the ratepayers in Dundee.
I am confident that the most popular person in Dundee at about 7 pm will be not the Secretary of State for Scotland, but councillor Tom McDonald, who will announce the district rate. I know that the rate will be welcomed by industrialists, ratepayers, local authority employees, and council house tenants who require the services that he will protect. I know that the Solicitor-General wishes to tempt me to divulge the rate which my colleague on the council will announce, but with his respect for law and order and democracy, he will accept that it is only right that the councillor should make the statement in the city chambers tonight. I am confident that when he makes that announcement we shall see who are the responsible politicians in Dundee.

Mr. William McKelvey: I was in my hon. Friend's constituency at the weekend and had discussions with councillors there. I was overwhelmingly impressed by the manner in which the Dundee councillors have run that city for many years, despite the attempts by the Secretary of State for Scotland to deprive


them of their democratic rights. I conclude from those discussions and from what I saw that the rate set by the Dundee town council, which will be announced at about 7 pm tonight, will be along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's visit to Dundee was most welcome because he has held responsibility on the district council as leader of the opposition. I shall bring my comparison of the council more up to date by contrasting it with Tayside regional council. It intends to raise rates by 3p and still retain enough in the general fund balance by closing schools, increasing school meal charges and refusing to provide necessary nurseries. Incidentally, it is at the same time making a mockery of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which the Secretary of State introduced.
The Government's attempt to force the guillotine demonstrates how unworried Tory Members are about their electoral support among local authorities. Different Scottish Ministers have approached the problem in different ways. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who unfortunately is not present, made an interesting comment on central Government involvement in local decision-making. In a letter to me on 18 January 1984 about the National Health Service in Dundee, he referred to
the obvious advantage of reducing the amount of central interference in the local provision of services.
If that is good enough for the Health Service, it is good enough for democratically elected local authorities. Whatever the result of tonight's vote, the people of Scotland will be able to judge the Government's actions and real intentions regarding local government, and they will know who their friends are.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: I was not a member of the Committee on the Bill, but I have sat on enough Standing Committees now to realise what my hon. Friends mean by the Opposition's delaying tactics. I am essentially a cautious person, and while the Bill progressed through the House I waited for an outcry about its effects on the general public. It has not come. Nothing has come to my notice from the general public. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), I have received not one piece of correspondence from my constituents on the matter. I have received no letters, no one has taken to the streets and local government has shown remarkable restraint.
It is high time that the Bill was brought back to the Floor of the House. I was initially cautious because I was involved in local government — Strathclyde regional council—and because I was anxious about some aspects of the Bill, especially the fundamental relationship between central and local government. I was anxious about the transfer of some responsibilities from central to local government, especially those which were originally associated with the financing of the Department of Health and Social Security. I was worried about the commitment of central Government to cutting expenditure. They asked local authorities to do that, but I felt that it was a sentiment expressed more in word than in deed.
However, when I finally pondered the Bill's effect, I decided that there was no threat of disintegration to local democracy. I believe that the lines have been blurred, and

that local authorities act not only in an autonomous capacity but as agents of central Government. These days, local government is big complex business. However, it is not such big and complex business as to warrant what I saw in Strathclyde region's minutes of 14 February. It was the final straw when I looked at the minutes of the policy and resources committee, which is exclusively Labour dominated, and saw the following heading:
Strathclyde and the Third World".
The United Kingdom's net aid programme for 1984–85 is worth £1,099 million. That may not be as great a percentage of the gross domestic product as the Brandt commission would have liked, and I accept that that commission urges the Government to spend more. However, does the Brandt commission say anything about local government expenditure on the Third world? Although Strathclyde has been crying out for additional resources, and relief from Government strictures, it wants to extend its largesse—correction: not its largesse, but that of the ratepayers — far beyond the curtilages of Strathclyde. It is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. More than ever, and on that basis alone, I am prepared to support the Government in order to enact this legislation quickly.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall be brief, as I wish only to explain the Liberal parry's attitude towards the guillotine motion and the workings of the Committee. The political position is clear. The Government have a majority. We can argue — as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) regularly does—about whether the Government have a mandate, but they clearly have a majority. They trailed parts of the legislation in their election manifesto in Scotland; so, as I said in Committee, under the rules of the game they are entitled to introduce it.
However, I do not agree with the Bill, principally because it strikes at the heart of our constitution. That was alluded to by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It interferes with the electorate's right to determine who their local authority representatives should be. People are entitled to cast their votes. The Government interference represented by the Bill strikes at the heart of the right of people to express their views about how their local authorities are spending their money. It is not for the Government but for the electorate to decide that. If the electorate do not like what the local authority is doing, it is incumbent on them to throw them out. It is not for the Government to set the rates in the way that they have chosen to do in the Bill.
As I have said before, the legislation is unnecessary. The financial constraints that the Secretary of State has in his inside pocket are powerful enough already. Earlier this Session, he demonstrated that to my satisfaction. I concede that, as Secretary of State for Scotland, he has to take account of local authority spending. If, by his lights, it is excessive, there must be machinery that he can use ultimately to redress the balance. However, he has that machinery now, and does not need more. That is why I believe that in principle the measure in misguided.
The Bill obtained a Second Reading and went into Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone); initially I was surprised and pleased at the speed with which the Committee proceeded. I felt that debate on the first three clauses was informed and that the Government's responses were helpful. The hon.


Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) elicited much useful and relevant information. Clause 3 was the important one, but after that our debates degenerated.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman was not there.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was not in Committee because I came to the conclusion that my main objections to the clauses would not be dealt with constructively. By definition, the Government will not concede any points of principle in Committee. They did not even agree any amendments, other than those involving minor drafting or typographical errors. I decided that to sit through the night trying to move mostly tinkering amendments would only bring the processes of the House into disrepute.
I am not surprised, therefore, that we are debating a guillotine motion tonight. Everyone foresaw what would happen, but it is not a particularly edifying experience. When the Government have a majority of 143, the Opposition are not being realistic if they expect to get round it by wasting time. There is no record of time-wasting achieving that end, and I doubt whether it ever will during my political career. Therefore, such tactics are unrealistic. If Opposition Members believed that such tactics were the only device available to them, that was a matter for them, but I certainly did not intend to sit up until 5 am, as I had other duties to perform. However, I shall ensure that I redress the balance on Report.
The hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Aberdeen, South said that the procedures of the House should be changed if we could not improve on the sort of charade that took place in Committee. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) stated our view in the debate on the guillotine motion on the Rates Bill. The commission on constitutional reform recently set up by the Liberal and Social Democratic parties states:
bills should be time-tabled under a procedure involving all parties from an early stage instead of being guillotined at such a late stage that many clauses and amendments are not discussed at all.
That is the view that I took when the sittings motion was moved, and it remains my view.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that he would have his say when the Bill returned to the House on Report, but does he realise that the Report stage is also being guillotined and that there will only be one day for it?

Mr. Kirkwood: As I have said, the Government have a majority. I deplore the fact that the debate on the valuation clauses is being curtailed, because they are important. Five sittings are not enough to do justice to the many outstanding clauses, so I shall recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they vote against the motion.
It is quite logical to say that if a guillotine had been imposed allowing the whole Bill to be discussed properly, I would have supported it. However, I cannot recommend that my colleagues should agree to only five days being allowed for the remaining valuation clauses.

Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the balance of time left, why has he not tabled an amendment to that effect?

Mr. Kirkwood: I did not think that that would be worth while. We table amendments with monotonous regularity, but none of them is selected, so that is also a waste of time. If the guillotine motion had been introduced earlier, in a sensible way, and had been agreed by the usual channels, we would have supported it. However, at this stage we cannot support it. There is not enough time left to deal with the valuation clauses, so I shall recommend that my colleagues vote against the motion.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I listened with sympathy to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) until he said that he would vote against the motion. I thought that I would avoid the temptation of saying that it was typically Liberal, when the going gets rough, to say that one has better things to do than to sit up until 5 o'clock in the morning. The hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways. Not only did he not attend the Committee and argue his case, but he wants the agony to continue. That smacks of opportunism and is not constructive.
I have listened to speeches by Opposition Members and it is difficult to take seriously their attempts to manufacture indignation and to weep crocodile tears because the Bill will not be discussed properly. After all, their delaying tactics and interminable speeches have made it impossible to discuss some of the technical but important clauses. I agree that there is much to be discussed in the valuation clauses. We shall not be able to discuss them properly because of the Opposition's performance in Committee.
I have served on two Committees. It is interesting that we should be told that this legislation is controversial, that great constitutional issues are at stake and that the legislation must be properly scrutinised. All the controversial bits were agreed quickly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) said. Opposition Members simply ran out of arguments in Committee. Their argument against the legislation was so weak that they could not even keep discussion on part I of the Bill going. When they returned to their constituencies, the hard men of the Left were saying "Why is there not a guillotine?" Labour spendthrift councillors had come down to London at ratepayers' expense and wanted to see a proper fight. Labour Members are under pressure because reselection is in the air again. That is another reason for the charade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Pathetic."] It is pathetic. The Opposition's performance in Committee is pathetic. Having dealt with the major areas of dispute they tabled nonsense amendments on valuation to deny the rest of us the opportunity, for non-partisan reasons, to discuss technical matters.
We have been treated yet again to the argument, so often used by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), that there is no mandate for the legislation in Scotland. Will Opposition Members give an undertaking that, in the unlikely event that the Labour party should ever form a Government and if, as they have for the last two Labour Governments, they depend for their majority on seats north of the border, those elements of policy applying north of border will not apply south of the border? How do they justify their position now in respect of the mandate with what happened when they were in government?

Mr. Maxton: Can the hon. Gentleman name one Department of State that is exclusively English and does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Forsyth: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) would give me the guarantee for which I asked. Knowing him, I imagined that he would. Unfortunately, neither he, nor the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, is able to bind the Labour party.
In Committee, the performance of Opposition Members was abysmal. With one or two exceptions, there was precious little constructive argument. Opposition Members were like the puffers that used to ply the west coast of Scotland, making a lot of steam and being obsolete and inefficient in their use of time. They even had their own version of Para Handy with his long-winded statements and attempts to keep his shambolic crew together.
The debate has a more serious aspect — the whole performance of the Committee and the fact that we should now be discussing a guillotine motion. Sitting up all night and tabling nonsensical amendments does not do any good to my constituents who are anxious to see the legislation on the statute book. The case for reform is overwhelming.
With due hesitation, as a new boy, I must say that I do not understand why Committees cannot be timetabled in advance. I do not understand why we cannot limit the length of speeches. Those of us with experience in local government are familiar with that concept. There is general agreement about the importance of local democracy, but I have heard no cries from local government that it is impossible to ensure local democracy when speeches are subject to a time limit.
The Bill is important, not for the bogus reason of an alleged threat to local government independence. Central Government are not interfering with the decision-making process of local authorities in Scotland. The Government are interfering with the right of local authorities to squeeze ratepayers until the pips squeak and to embark upon extravagant expenditure, but local authorities will be as free as they ever were to make decisions within available resources.
I should like us to give greater scrutiny to the valuation clauses. The Government's proposals could be improved in some respects, but——

Mr. Dewar: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: I am well aware of the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wishes to make. He will argue that if I am so anxious to discuss valuation, why support the guillotine? If he is not planning to say that, I shall give way.

Mr. Dewar: I was about to produce a more sympathetic variation of that argument. The guillotine will be enforced by a majority in the Lobbies tonight, so the amount of time available for the important valuation clauses will depend entirely on the Government's judgment when setting the timetable. If the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is distressed that there will not be enough time, why does not he put pressure on Ministers to provide more time?

Mr. Forsyth: As in all matters, a balance must be struck.
It is important to pass the legislation. It is already having an effect before it reaches the statute book. Far be it from me to praise Stirling district council in two successive debates. That is unlikely, but how unlikely was

it even a year ago that Stirling district council would be announcing that there is to be no rate rise this year? Cynics might think that the legislation has nothing to do with that but that another matter has concentrated its mind. That local authority's attitude has changed markedly because it knows that the game is up. The rules may have been changed, but it will play by the rules. The beneficiaries are the voters of all political colours not only in my constituency but throughout Scotland.
Council tenants in my constituency are alarmed by the appalling rate-borne subsidies that Stirling district continues to impose. Some council tenants have within their families three or four wage-earners. The elderly, owner-occupiers and single occupiers do not want to subsidise those who can afford to pay a proper rent. Nor do they want better-off council tenants to be subsidised at the ratepayers' expense. There is no equity in that; and the sooner we have the benefits of clause 4 of the Bill, the better.
I welcome the guillotine. It will bring relief and sanity to local government. When the legislation has progressed through the House and finally to the statute book, it will obtain what Labour Members keep saying is their concern in local government — namely, better services for the ratepayers. Time and again during the progress of the Bill they have asserted that good services imply spending lots of money, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Buchan: Is the opposite true?

Mr. Forsyth: The opposite is not true. Good services come from good housekeeping. When local authorities are forced to budget and manage their affairs within given financial limits, they provide better services. They move away from what Labour Members have tried for years to make local government do — to become a vast employment organ within the community. Indeed, I understood the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in an intervention to encourage the growth of public expenditure.

Mr. McKelvey: Yes, of course.

Mr. Forsyth: Labour Members believe in public expenditure. They believe that the higher it goes, the better, because more people become dependent on the state for their livelihood, income, services and everything else. Society becomes more Socialist and less free. That is why the Opposition have opposed the Bill root and branch.
Those of us who are in politics to help people in the greatest need believe that local government, subject to financial constraints, performs more effectively. There are no good examples in Scotland, apart from Cumnock and Doon Valley. However, south of the border local authorities have been forced by expenditure constraints to test the efficiency of their services — professional services, such as those involving architects and lawyers, and cleaning and refuse collection services and to go out to tender. Not only have savings been made through private contractors coming in, but, more to the point, local direct labour organisations, work forces and officers have produced savings.
That is what the Bill is all about. It is designed to allow local authorities to have the freedom to do what people in private business do — to test efficiency, invite


competition and get the best deal they can. In local government, that means getting the best deal for the ratepayers.
At the local elections in May the voters will have to decide which party can best provide services that represent value for money and genuinely care for their electorate. Opposition Members, by virtue of their performance and arguments on the Bill in Committee, have shown that they have precious little claim to that accolade.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am anxious that all hon. Members who wish to speak should have the opportunity to do so. This debate will conclude at 6.39 pm. I hope that all hon. Members who are called will be brief.

Mr. Bob McTaggart: It is always unfortunate when the House must debate a guillotine motion because at issue is the very right of hon. Members to defend the interests of their constituents and oppose measures, as they see fit, to the best of their ability.
Labour Members need make no apology for the way in which we have opposed this legislation, which we believe to be bad for our constituents and local authorities. It is a shame that the guillotine should be applied to this of all Bills because the measure attacks local authorities and councillors and, thereby, attacks local democracy. The Government are forcing through legislation which will impose the will of the Government on local authorities.
So strong is feeling against this legislation that when the Bill's sister measure, that applying to England and Wales, was discussed, Conservative Members felt that they could not support it, and many of them voted with the Opposition against it and even more abstained. It is to be regretted that not a Conservative voice was heard in Committee against the Bill from among those who voted against the English legislation.
The Leader of the House said that the Bill's two most controversial clauses, clauses 3 and 6, had already been discussed. Clause 3 relates to the controversial rate-capping measures while clause 6 limits what a council can take from the rate fund contribution to its housing revenue account. As the two most controversial clauses have been discussed, it seems ludicrous for the Government to cut short future debate on the Bill, especially as we are making headway.

Mr. Hirst: Is the hon. Gentleman by implication agreeing with my proposition that the scores of amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are vexatious and designed to disrupt progress on the remaining parts of the Bill?

Mr. McTaggart: No. Every hon. Member has the right to oppose legislation which he considers to be bad. It is brutal for the Government to impose the guillotine and so cut short the debate on legislation which we consider to be bad. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is entitled to introduce such amendments as he sees fit to protect his constituents. It is sad that at a time when even the Leader of the House admits that we are making progress the measure should be guillotined.
My hon. Friends and I did not force a vote on the first sittings motion in Committee. However, within a couple

of weeks the Government introduced a timetable motion which kept us sitting till all hours. We opposed that because legislation of this complexity and importance should be dealt with in a proper fashion, and we should have adequate time in which to prepare our arguments.
Even if the Government had a sufficient mandate in Scotland, it would be an abuse of that mandate to introduce legislation such as this. My constituents must accept that, because of the way in which the English electorate voted, they have a Conservative Government. They cannot do anything about that. However, they elected local authorities to protect them from what they regard as some of the worst aspects of central Government, no matter the political persuasion of that Government. Local authorities are designed to protect local people against the worst ravages of the actions of central Government.

Mr. Hirst: rose——

Mr. McTaggart: We have been urged by Mr. Deputy Speaker to be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not give way.
It is sad that my constituents, having recognised that they must suffer under this Government, for whom they did not vote, must be doubly attacked in that the local authorities, which they did elect, are being attacked by that same Government. Local councillors know best what services their communities require. They are accountable through the ballot box in the same way as Members of this place and they should have the right to fix rents and rates for those whom they represent.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to highlight during consideration of the Bill who is responsible for the lack of services, cuts in services, local authority redundancies and the forcing up of rent levels. The fault lies with central Government and not with the duly elected councillors. Central Government are hiding behind Bills such as the one before us while seeking to impose their will on communities which have no truck with them. I hope that tonight we shall see some Conservatives joining Opposition Members to vote against the guillotine motion, which will do nothing for democracy. It will lead central Government down a path of confrontation with local government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I suspect that no Scottish Conservative Members will be joining the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) in the Opposition Lobby, and I shall explain why. It is important to set the Bill in context. The Bill has been discussed in Committee for no fewer than 82 hours. What did the previous Labour Government do when they had the Scotland Bill on the Floor of the House? Almost at once, before it had been discussed for many hours, a guillotine was applied to it. The guillotine motion was carried and implemented at an early stage. There was no question of discussing the major controversial issues in the Bill for anything like 82 hours.
Why has a guillotine motion been applied to the Bill at this stage? After the all-night sitting it became clear that Labour Members—I mention one in particular, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has the capacity to speak for half an hour on virtually any


subject under the sun—did not want the Bill to make progress. I say with respect that the hon. Member for Garscadden has the capability to exhaust time and to encroach upon eternity. When a vast number of amendments were tabled on valuation, which had not until that stage been a desperately controversial issue, it became clear that the Opposition's tactic was to speak at as great length as possible to ensure that the Bill could not pass through the House without a guillotine.
I believe that there is a time for the fullest debate and discussion. I believe also that there is a time for decision. It appears from the correspondence that I have been receiving that there is strong support for the reserve powers that are contained in the Bill and the necessary measures to protect ratepayers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said in his excellent speech, a high level of rating can have a detrimental effect on business and a significant effect in destroying jobs. I believe that the Bill will protect jobs and lead to the creation of more jobs by keeping rates at reasonable levels.
The progress that has been made so far is not sufficient. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he looked forward to hearing more speeches, and he will hear them in the fullness of time. I am anxious to contribute to the discussion on the new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has tabled, especially the interesting one that is designed to ensure that accounts can be scrutinised. I wish on behalf of my constituents to contribute to the discussion on clause 13 while directing myself to the Edinburgh zoo, which has the best collection of animals throughout Scotland. Bearing in mind that the most controversial issues have been dealt with already, I believe that it will be in the interests of Labour Members, as well as in our own, to address ourselves to that clause.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked why there had not been more speeches from Conservative Members in Committee. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we have been well satisfied with the arguments that he has advanced. When my colleagues have not been so satisfied they have intervened. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has major speeches during our deliberations in Committee.
At 3 o'clock in the morning hon. Members do not contribute to debates quite as well as at some other times. For example, at 3 am during the all-night sitting on 23 February, the Chairman asked the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to direct his remarks to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman replied that it was difficult to relate his remarks to anything while a dialogue was taking place at the same time. It will be much easier if there is an informal discussion on the best way to proceed with the remainder of the Bill, which is considerably less controversial.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that he might have supported the guillotine motion if it had been introduced at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill in Committee. Surely that would have been a much more controversial issue. If that had happened, there would have been a case for arguing that democratic rights were to be curtailed. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would not have had the support of his party if he had tabled such a motion at that stage. There is no Liberal amendment

on the Order Paper and so we shall not have the opportunity to vote on Liberal policy. I support the motion as being reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not think that anyone will deny that this is an important Bill. I do not think that anyone will deny either that the Government's gross behaviour in trying to make such a Bill subject to a guillotine motion will be noted in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) talked about an equally important Bill—the devolution Bill. He observed that it was subjected eventually to a guillotine motion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that Bill, because it was a constitutional measure that also bore on our democracy, was debated on the Floor of the House, and indeed there were practically no closure motions. If the Government had taken that course with this Bill, we might have been able to accept some of the special pleading of Conservative Members.
The Bill is an important constitutional measure that will erode further the democratic rights of local authorities and those who elected them by expressing their wishes through the ballot box. The sister measure for England and Wales will be responsible for a similar erosion. We happen, partly because of the opposition of the troglodytes on the Conservative Benches to devolution, to be a unitary state. There is no balance for federal states of the sort that exist in America. We have none of the powers of prefectures that are to be found in France. Consequently, there are many problems, and that is the case for devolution. However, we do not have it and we shall not have it under this Government.
Local government is not a substitute for devolution, but it represents a recognition that we cannot leave all decisions about the services and welfare of our people to central Government. We cannot leave all decisions about planning and education in the hands of a unitary Government in Westminster. Central Government do not understand the needs of people in particular areas and they cannot express them. They do not understand because they are concerned with the running of major Government Departments. They are not concerned to try to understand, because they are not in power to reflect the separate and disparate needs of local areas. Therefore, the Bill is an important constitutional measure and it is a major disgrace that it was not brought on the Floor of the House so that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I could participate in its consideration.
The attack on the democratic nature of our state and, above all, upon the will of the electorate has not been taken on board by Conservative Members. They seem not to understand that following that attack we shall no doubt witness the whittling away of local differences.
The Bill betrays an appalling economic ignorance. That ignorance has been demonstrated by the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Gog and Magog of the group of troglodytes on the Conservative Benches. They fail to understand the importance of public expenditure. They claim that the Bill is an attempt to cut public expenditure; but it was not supposed to be that. It was supposed to be a means of regulating local authorities.
Those hon. Gentlemen are saying now that the legislation is to do not only with serving the needs of ratepayers and, above all, the non-domestic ratepayers—the business section in which Conservative Members are interested — but with the economic state of the nation and the theory of public expenditure. That view is maintained now only by the University of Chicago, one or two of the Conservatives' outriders, such as Milton Friedman, when he is not advising Chile and similarly democratic states, and the Prime Minister. The Scottish Tories are the only other group that believes in that concept. Few of the English Tories now believe it. During the passage of the Rates Bill, a number of English Tories expressed reservations and some had the courage to oppose the legislation. Sometimes with these Members opposite I shudder about what will happen with devolution. Not a single Scottish Tory Member has taken on board the importance of public expenditure in relation to the expansion of the economy. Their attitude is also cutting across the traditional Conservative view.
The Conservatives have taken away the century-old philosophy of the importance of local democracy and the need to cut the central power of the state. Remember Maggie saying, "We will roll back the boundaries of the state." We have seen the state moving in on local authorities and the trade unions. The state has laid its icy hands upon the opportunities available to local areas to meet their local needs by spending money. We have seen what occurred at Cheltenham. We have seen also the reverse of the election promise to "roll back the boundaries of the state." The Government have rolled back the boundaries of the welfare state and rolled in the powers of the oppressive state. Those false promises are encapsulated in the Bill.
I was a little revolted at the arguments about the failure to have serious discussion of amendments. The only example given related to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, who gave the example, did not understand the amendment. That amendment was sensible and should have been discussed. It provided for the replacement of an official by a representative, who would be either a councillor or an official. The amendment was a small piece of democracy. It is amazing that Conservative Members fail to understand the operations of democracy, but that is a characteristic of them.
I wish to be brief, so I shall not embark on the main point—the villainy of the Bill and the heresy of the cuts in public expenditure. The attempt to cut public expenditure has resulted in 4 million people being unemployed. Without the trigger of public expenditure, there is no impetus for the recovery of the economy. The sooner Conservative Members realise that, the better. Scottish Tories have been a disgrace to their historic conservatism, to Scotland and even the democracy within the Conservative party. Some bold Conservative souls south of the border were prepared to speak out and put up their hands in the interests of this country. The Bill should be withdrawn, and kicked off the Order Paper. The legislation should again be discussed in Committee to expose its inadequacies.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The speech of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) was striking for its brevity, compared with the speeches in Committee on less important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) spoke of the importance of Edinburgh zoo and the improvements he hopes to see effected by the Bill. In the idle hours, when we have had to listen to speeches that were extraordinary for their quantity rather than their quality, hon. Members might have given some thought to new species that might be introduced to Edinburgh zoo — the dribbling driveller of East Lothian, the wordpecker of Garscadden, the bearded barker of Falkirk, the magpie of Monklands and the throated puffer of Maryhill.

Mr. Maxton: Is not the hon. Gentleman wasting time now?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening from a sedentary position. My remarks were typical of speech after speech from Opposition Members.

Mr. Maxton: None.

Mr. Henderson: I managed to contain my remarks on secondary considerations to one minute. Opposition Members made speeches lasting hours on matters that were no more weighty than those on which I have spoken so far.
The Committee's performance shows that that is no way in which we can effectively legislate. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has recently come from presiding over the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Some of his friends in Scottish local government would be astonished if they observed how Parliament went about its business by going through crucial legislation line by line and clause by clause. Such legislation is important not only for local government but for the way we establish rating and, ultimately, the effect on taxation. If local authorities conducted their affairs in committee as all too often the House does, the House would feel that something ought to be done. I hope that the House, in looking at the way it conducts Committee work, will decide that improvements should be made.
I have as great a respect as any hon. Member for the customs, traditions and rules of the House. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about improving the efficiency of the House. He made the fair point that to most people improved efficiency normally means the Government getting their business through faster. That may be more efficient for the Government, but it is not in the interest of Back Benchers generally or of the Opposition.
I recognise the legitimate rights of the Opposition to have a reasonable say and, if necessary, to delay the Government's business through legitimate processes on the Floor of the House. I do not believe — hon. Members should concentrate on this point—that, in an era when Committee debates are rarely held on the Floor of the House, the customary practice of dragging out Committee business is any longer relevant. The only people to suffer are members of Committees and those affected by the legislation, because its quality will be less than if the hon. Members had worked together in


Committee to improve it. Ultimately, the Government's business is still discussed. The House should look at the way it will discuss business. I recognise that there will not be an overnight revolution and that we must find a gradual process by which our practices can be improved.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) said that local councillors know what services are needed in their locality. That is probably true in most cases, but they do not have a broad view of other services competing for resources, or, above all, the combined effect of competition on the totality of public expenditure and, therefore, the burden on individual citizens.
I shall give one example of that. If local authorities charge heavier rates, over which the House has no control, they may reduce the amount of health care available from the health services. Substantial increases in the rates represent one of the largest increases in costs that the health services have had to bear in recent years. The local authorities spend more money on providing services that might be inefficient, but the health services find it more difficult to provide patient care because they have to pay more money in local authority rates.
We have had discussions before about the control of rates. The Labour-controlled Fife regional council has not been one of the extreme big spenders in Scotland, but this year its rate increase, which it has just announced, is more than double the rate of inflation, although the new distribution formula works positively to its advantage and it has had increased money as a result of the change of formula to the client group approach. By contrast, the Conservative-controlled north-east Fife district council, where the formula worked against the council to the extent of the loss of the product of a penny rate, has not increased rates or rents. Opposition Members have been frank, saying that they would welcome any opportunity to increase public expenditure.

Mr. Buchan: We did not say that.

Mr. Henderson: I understood that that is what they said, and it came across clearly.

Mr. Buchan: This is the second time that we have heard a complete distortion of the facts. We believe in intelligent application of public expenditure. That is the only real trigger to economic recovery. The hon. Gentleman must not talk nonsense, saying that we want to deprive people of freedom or that we are in favour of any sort of public expenditure. I could list a number of things that we are not in favour of—aid to private education is one.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government provide less for private education than the Labour Government did.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) spoke, there was a clear cry from the Opposition, particularly from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for increased public expenditure. Such an increase would mean taking more money from individual citizens. The tragedy of the past 20 years is that when the Conservatives left office in 1964, only people on or above average earnings paid income tax, but because of many Labour Governments since then, virtually everyone who works pays tax.
Parliament has a duty to respond to the grievances of the people. One of their greatest grievances is the burden of rates and tax. I believe that they will welcome the Bill and therefore this guillotine.

Mr. John Maxton: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) walked into the Chamber at 5.20 pm and made his speech, obviously having been told to do so by his Whip. That is disgraceful. He failed to understand economic policy and the fact that his Government have massively increased public expenditure, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said. An example is expenditure on the Falkland Islands. The Government are prepared to increase by 3 per cent. every year the amount of money that they spend on defence, particularly on nuclear weapons, yet the hon. Gentleman argued that there should be a cut in public expenditure.
Ultimately, the debate is about the Government's economic policy and the fact that they have failed dismally to carry out the ideological and economic policies that they set themselves in 1979. They are now making local government the whipping boy for their failure to cut public expenditure in Government Departments. They have been asking local authorities to do it instead.
Scottish local authorities were elected by the people of Scotland. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), but I agreed with him twice tonight, which is unusual. I agreed with him when he said that the Liberals, as usual, were dithering around on the fence and were not sure on which side to come down. Secondly, agreed when he said that the people will decide at the district elections in Scotland in May. Let the people decide. Let them say what they think about local government and how it should be run. Let us prove, as Conservative Members claim, that the people of Scotland want this legislation.
The Government should say, "We shall hold back the legislation. We shall keep it in Committee and keep talking until May, or we shall abandon the Committee stage and bring the Bill back after the May elections. We shall prove our contention that the people of Scotland want this legislation and reject the philosophy that the Labour party will put forward in the local elections." Of course, the Government are not prepared to say that because they know that it will not happen. They know that in local authority after local authority the people of Scotland will return Labour to control because they want better services, with more investment in local services. They want the right to have a say in their own affairs. The local authorities, elected by the people, should not be controlled by a Government whom they did not elect in the first place.
The other argument by the hon. Member for Stirling, in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), typified more than anything else what the debate is all about. He said that Scotland has more irresponsible Left-wing local authorities than England. The Government are attacking Labour-controlled authorities that want to protect their people and services. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said that somehow or other companies have been driven out of business by the level of rates. I asked him for one example, but he could not give one. All that he could say was that Glasgow chamber


of commerce was opposed to high rates. Of course it is. Incidentally, it is also opposesd to high taxes. The Government have increased taxes as well as trying to keep down rates. The increase in taxes has been higher than the increase in rates. The hon. Gentleman blamed local authorities as well as creditors for people going out of business. What an excuse. Most businesses borrow money from banks. Is the hon. Gentleman blaming the banks for the fact that many companies go bankrupt? That is the logic of his argument.
The measure is undemocratic. I shall be in the Lobby to oppose it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no way that I can make a useful contribution to the debate given the fact that I have been asked to confine my remarks to three minutes.
I hope that some hon. Members will take my comments seriously. Having made a useful contribution to local government in Scotland over the years, and having served on the Committee—I hope that I have been regarded as a fairly faithful member of it — I believe that my comments on the matter should not be confined to two or three minutes. Moreover, some Conservative Members have criticised the contributions of Committee members, no doubt including myself, who are perfectly entitled to make speeches. It is defying democracy and any sense of fair play to suggest that we can reply in the short time available to us.
For that reason, I conclude by saying that my commitment to local government is no less as a result of the debate and that my commitment to Parliament is undiminished, too. What we have seen during the passage of the Bill and as result of the guillotine motion is an affront to local government and Parliament. Against that background I shall consider my future role within the Committee.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The speech of the Leader of the House was remarkably unconvincing. I suspect that that was because he recognised that his case was unconvincing. The right hon. Gentleman outdid himself. He is normally laconic and detached, but today he was reduced to a low monotone, dropping to a mumble on occasions.
I got the strong impression that the Leader of the House did not know what was in the Bill and that he cared less. He stuck to a dreary Scottish Office brief and hurried away to more congenial matters. Perhaps he will return shortly. In a sense, I do not blame the Leader of the House for adopting such an approach. He has a certain idiosyncratic pride in our democratic system and the exercise in which we are engaged is rather squalid and distasteful.
For example, I cannot help thinking that the Leader of the House would find clause 2 of the Bill an extremely unpleasant item. It proposes that when the Secretary of State takes the unusual and draconian step of overruling a local authority's democratically elected councillors by bringing in an order to reduce their rate support grant, as a penalty and a fine, no matter how many authorities are being dealt with—each will deserve individual attention

—they are to be lumped together in one order on which there can be only one vote. That is an example of the fundamentally unsatisfactory nature of the legislation.
How could the Leader of the House, as custodian of the rights of the House, agree to such a proposition? Four of five authorities may be named in an order. Perhaps even Labour Members may feel that some were being properly penalised—who knows what may happen in the future?—but everyone may agree that it is a monstrous liberty to penalise others. The House will have no way of distinguishing between the two sets of circumstances. That makes a mockery and a farce of any idea of control by the House over the Executive. That is what the Government are trying to slip through in the Bill.
The facts have been rehearsed — 21 sittings, 78 hours, 1,000 columns of Hansard. I say to Conservative Members, "So what?" I believe that we were right to look at what was being done and being proposed. I will not apologise for that and I do not suppose that any of my hon. Friends will apologise either.
We have had some extraordinary contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) told us in a strange speech that she had decided to support the Bill because Strathclyde regional council had done something to aid the Third world. We were left in a state of anti-climatic depression, because the hon. Lady would not even tell us what the council had done. She merely said that the council was in favour of the Third world. Then she got up and left. How extraordinary. I am only sorry that the hon. Lady is not here to tell us in an intervention what was so offensive about Strathclyde regional council helping the Third world that it drove her into the arms of her own Government.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) talked about the heavy burden of tax upon the people. I thought for a moment that he was about to condemn his own Government, who have made a considerable contribution to increasing the tax burden of ordinary people in Scotland over the past five years. It is time that we cleared our minds about the grounds on which the Government are conducting their vendetta against local government. The hon. Gentleman did nothing to help us.
I ask the hon. Gentleman a rhetorical question. Is his objection to the fact that Fife is putting up its rates based merely on his disagreement with what the council is doing? If so, he is clearly saying that the Government should take over all the powers of local government. That seemed to be the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I hoped that he would not show that sort of extremism.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) arrived, perhaps not like the seventh cavalry, because he is more of a Dobbin, to give succour and help to his Ministers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read some of the briefings that we have received. If he thinks that the valuation clauses are not controversial and are generally acceptable, he should read the briefings from the Faculty of Advocates, the Association of Assessors and COSLA. He will see that those clauses are the kernel of a technical but important argument.
The Opposition have not been obstructing part II of the Bill. We were told by many of those who make their living by working within the valuation system that clause 7 fundamentally changes the basis on which that system is operated. The Committee passed that clause in one day


and the afternoon sitting finished at 7 pm, yet we are told that we are filibustering and obstructing and that our proceedings must be brought to a premature end. Conservative Members have prated on about their wish to have a proper debate on the valuation clauses, but the guillotine will prevent that proper debate from taking place.
One of the distressing feaures of our proceedings has been the fact that Conservative Back Benchers have remained silent throughout. Perhaps I should not complain. One of the reasons for voting against the guillotine is that we could end the unprecedented silence of the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries.
However, it is a sad commentary that when major debates have taken place about the future balance of power between central and local government, there has been nothing from the serried ranks of Conservative Back Benchers—not a squawk or a squeak of pain; nothing but impenetrable silence.
We make no bones about our opposition to the Bill, and we are not alone in opposing it. We have support in every quarter of Scottish opinion. We are supported by COSLA and Labour councils, but even independent and Tory councils have expressed their reservations. The Edinburgh chamber of commerce sees the Bill as unconstitutional and exceptionable. The only person who has had anything good to say about the Bill—and that in a rather backhanded way—was the Tory leader of Edinburgh district council, councillor Brereton. He said merely that the Bill was not so much wicked as totally unnecessary.
The press, the public, those who work in local government and those who serve as elected members have said, almost unanimously, that the Bill is an unnecessary encroachment on local authorities' room for manoeuvre and on the principles on which local democracy is founded. The Bill is friendless and unwanted, except amoung the claque on the Tory Back Benches.
The Bill is a fundamental attack on local democracy. The Secretary of State will be able to set rates and rents and steamroller the decisions of democratically elected councillors who have done nothing illegal and nothing wrong. They have merely exercised a perfectly proper statutory discretion in a way that the Secretary of State does not like. That is what is so offensive about the Bill. It is another dose of the centralisation which has become the hallmark of the Government.
I say in a friendly, but perhaps warning, way to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that he is now known as "Hepworth man"; he is becoming a Central Office identikit loyalist. I thought that his speech was smug, self-satisfied and, although he did not realise it, in one passage offensive. He said that if local authorities were sensible and prudent, they would have nothing to fear. That is a damaging and ludicrous euphemism for saying that they will be all right as long as they do what the Secretary of State tells them to do. We do not like or want that.
I accept that there is sometimes a great deal wrong with the way in which we conduct our business in the House, but some of the things that were wrong with the Committee were clearly the fault of the Government. It was wrong that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), time and again, in sitting after sitting, was totally inflexible, not prepared to give an inch

and unwilling to consider any emendation or change, even in the nuances or on the margins of the tablets of stone that he had brought down from Dover house.
Labour Members, rightly or wrongly — I do not assume that we were always right — consistently put points of view that had widespread support far beyond the active ranks of the Labour party. Yet all that we achieved in all those 82 hours was the correction of one typographical error in one schedule to the Bill. That suggests to me that the Minister was probably under orders and the Administration had a closed mind. When we are talking about what is wrong with parliamentary scrutiny and why it is sometimes an arid and unrewarding process, we must look at such phenomena.
Then there is the fact that we had to sit through the night. I did not like it any more than anyone else. It has not done any good and it did not improve the clarity of my mind or my arguments. Whose fault was it that we were sitting through the night? Whose fault was it that the Government were so determined to push through the Bill on a telescoped timetable that they unjustifiably forced us to sit through the day and night? If the atmosphere turned sour, whose fault was it? It was the fault of the Minister and the business managers who set up those circumstances.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I disagree with almost everything he says, but I am prepared to accept that he was genuinely concerned about the fact that we may not have time properly to consider the valuation clauses that remain. I intervened in his speech, but all he could say was, "We are in such a hurry to get the Bill on the statute book because there will be so many benefits for the people of Scotland that we must have it immediately."
Clauses 3, 4 and 6 are the controversial clauses that the hon. Member for Stirling, with his strange order of priorities, thinks will be valuable, but they apply only to the financial year 1985–86. They do not affect the current financial year, so there would have been plenty of time for another two or three weeks' debate on the important valuation clauses. If the hon. Member complains, why does he not address his remarks not to me but to the Secretary of State and his colleagues who have decided that we should rush, to no particular benefit, to the conclusion of this important Committee stage?
After all, not only are the important matters not due to come into effect until the financial year after next, but there is no pressing weight of Scottish legislation. We have almost—I make that important caveat—a consolidation Bill dealing with roads, and we have the Bill on static fishing gear, and almost nothing else in the pipeline. There is nothing to dictate the speed with which we have been forced to move. The whole thing is a sad business and a sad comment on the way in which the Government have been souring relations in the House.
I do not know whether I should boast about this point—some may think that it is a badge of shame, although I do not think that my colleagues do—but this is the first Scottish Bill that has been guillotined since 1979. We have not been an unreasonable group of Opposition Members, and where we thought that a Bill had merit we have positively tried to aid its passage. Only two or three weeks ago, the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill, which could have been held in Committee for many


days, if not weeks, was allowed through all its stages in one day on the Floor of the House because we were prepared to deal impartially with its merits.
I accept that we have a different attitude to this Bill, but that is not because of some senseless prejudice but because we believe that it deals with important and fundamental matters. We have to articulate and put the many points that are coming from almost every quarter of Scotland where these matters are considered. One can make a cheap point by saying that the mailbags are not full of letters with worries about how the next general abatement distribution formula will be affected by clause 2. They are not, because such matters do not attract public attention. As the results become clear, as we see the erosion of local democracy, we shall see the public anxiety which at the moment comes only from those quarters where people watch the system and worry about the way in which we are constructing our local government in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In those quarters, there is a great deal of anxiety and anger, which we are entitled to express in Committee.
The position has not been helped by a rather petulant statement unnecessarily put out to the press by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a few days ago. Typically of him, he wanted the best of both worlds. We were told that the guillotine was justified by the Opposition's obstruction, but in the next paragraph we were told that there had been no effective opposition. That is an interesting example of the lack of logic to which we have become accustomed from the Under-Secretary.
There has been effective opposition, and it was justified. I give the Under-Secretary a warning. We shall continue to fight the Bill as best we can, although we shall be circumscribed as a result of the vote in a few minutes. We shall continue to fight it in the time left by the timetable motion. We shall fight it on Report and on Third Reading. I hope that the other place will take up the cause and that we shall rouse public opinion in the way that I have described. There is every point in fighting if there is a cause—and there is a fundamental cause at stake here. It is the right of local communities to elect their representatives to manage their local affairs and to hold those representatives responsible for what they have done at the ballot box. I dislike what the Bill stands for and I am proud that we have made what stand we can within the rules of the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The difference between the two sides of the House tonight might have been epitomised by the failure of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to distinguish between "obstructive" and "effective", because that is the argument that we bring to bear in the debate. The hon. Member used all the passion that we have come to expect from him. He must have been disappointed that this major issue, which is of crucial importance to Scotland according to him, attracted at the beginning of the debate less than one quarter of the total number of Labour Members from Scotland. Only at the end of the debate has the number increased to about half.
Not surprisingly, the debate has ranged fairly widely over all the differing aspects of the Bill. I shall concentrate on the central issue before us today, the timetable motion for the remaining stages of the Bill to ensure its reasonable

progress and, more importantly, to ensure that those who will benefit from it will not unreasonably find their right to do so delayed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) pointed out.
During business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition said of this motion:
The Opposition bitterly oppose this limitation on a measure which includes a major constitutional change". — [Official Report, 1 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 397.]
This attitude was reflected in the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
I dispute that there is any "major constitutional change" involved in this Bill, but that is perhaps a matter for another debate. What is beyond doubt is that the Standing Committee on this Bill has already fully, without restriction and at length, dealt with the two clauses upon which the Opposition have concentrated this criticism.
Clause 3, which seeks powers generally to limit rate increases, was, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, debated in Committee for some 25 hours. Clause 6, which seeks powers to limit rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account, was debated for some 17½ hours. Hardly a case of limited debate. More importantly, these contentious clauses have been passed by the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman's bitter opposition to any "limitation" of debate on them is therefore totally and utterly misplaced in the context of today's debate.
The hon. Member for Garscadden made the point that I had accepted no amendment in Committee except one minor technical one moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The reason was simple. There were no amendments that I could tell my hon. Friends would improve the Bill in any way. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman went further and began to go back into past local government debates and to talk about the erosion of local democracy. We have heard a lot from him about that in Committee. It was an echo from those Committees of four years ago when he talked about the erosion of local democracy and of how those pieces of legislation would destroy local government as we knew it in Scotland. Looking around now in local government in Scotland, we find a very healthy situation. There is no sign of the erosion which was foretold. Once again the hon. Gentleman is concentrating his attack on an area which he knows may cause fear in some people's hearts but which bears no relation to reality.
Today we are dealing essentially with the very real benefits which would be lost if the Bill did not become law by the summer. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already referred to some of these, but it might be helpful if I spelt out the consequences in more detail, because in each case it would be the Scottish ratepayer who lost from delay. It is all very well for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to say that our arguments in this respect are pathetic. I do not think that the ratepayers of Scotland see them in that way.
Clause 1 of the Bill enables the amount of grant lost by an individual authority in the event of a general abatement to be directly related to its degree of overspending. That is not the position today and the present system is generally regarded as unfair. The new system proposed in this clause will come into operation immediately on the passage of the Bill, so that these fairer arrangements will be available for the financial year 1984–85 if there is a general abatement this summer. If the Bill did not become law by the


summer, any general abatement would have to be shared on the present unfair basis. I do not understand how the Opposition could defend their actions whereby councils close to guidelines would yet again be paying proportionately higher grant penalty than authorities which had overspent to a far greater extent. That would rightly be resented by authorities and ratepayers alike. They want this provision available for this summer.
Clause 4 introduces the requirement for authorities to consult non-domestic ratepayers before determining their rates. This has been widely welcomed by such ratepayers as an opportunity to ensure that all local authorities are fully aware of the effects of their rating decisions on those who provide the jobs and create the wealth within their areas. Quite rightly, they want this consultation for next year, but if it is to be useful it needs to start in the late summer or early autumn, and it will require the necessary direction and code of practice which will be issued immediately on the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have not much time, and I want to cover as many of the Opposition's arguments as possible.
If the Bill did not become law until after the summer it would in effect make such consultations impossible until the financial year 1985–86 and yet another year would have gone by before those paying more than half the rates in Scotland had some voice in the process of deciding those rates. The fact that this clause has already been approved by the Standing Committee would in such circumstances add insult to injury.
The clauses yet to be debated in Committee also contain a number of provisions which are eagerly awaited by ratepayers. While some of the valuation provisions of this part of the Bill are required only after the revaluation due in 1985, others seek to correct anomalies where delay would rightly be resented by the ratepayers concerned. For instance, failure to secure the timeous enactment of clauses 11 and 12 would prolong unnecessarily the high rate burdens carried by Scottish caravan-occupiers and Scottish reed-bed exploiters compared with their English counterparts. Already, over the years, their contribution has been inequitable, and delay in rectifying the situation would be hard to defend.
Clause 14 widens the provision for appeal between revaluations, and some ratepayers may wish to take advantage of this before the next revaluation. Indeed, the use of this new right of appeal might influence the revaluation of certain properties. Both the Government and ratepayers wish it to be available in good time. Any delay which reduced the practical benefit of this clause before revaluation would hardly be in the best interests of ratepayers.
These are some of the provisions of the Bill which are threatened by delay and which ratepayers rightly want to have available as soon as possible. I believe they want also the arguably more contentious provisions in the Bill, which have been duly approved by the Committee and which are designed to protect them from exploitation by overspending and irresponsible councils.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pointed out last Wednesday, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who, in 1976 in a similar debate, said:

there is a greater danger to this Parliament from fatuous and superficial scrutiny of Bills than from the expedition of business which the people of the country demand."—[Official Report, 15 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 912.]
I agree. Scottish ratepayers are demanding this Bill. It fulfils the commitments they have a right to expect from our election manifesto, and they are anxious for the protection and help it provides.
In that context, it must be hard for them to understand how the Opposition on the Standing Committee could take nearly two hours discussing schedule 1 — a Keeling schedule, the substance of which could not be amended—which in any event was incorporated in the Bill to meet criticisms made in the past by the hon. Member for Garscadden. It must be harder still for ratepayers to appreciate that three-quarters of an hour could be spent debating the meaning of the word "exactly". While I am sure that they will admire the ability of the hon. Member for Garscadden to speak for more than an hour on one amendment to clause 3, I am also sure that, like me, they will wonder what the real purpose was.
Again, while they may be entertained by a discourse on class from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), as were we all at that late hour, they might be forgiven for wondering whether this did riot come within the defintion by the Leader of the Opposition of ' fatuous and superficial scrutiny".

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard exactly what was said, and I do not think that this can be a point of order.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, because I would not suggest that the fatuous and superficial remarks that we heard in Committee from the Opposition were in any way out of order, but being in order did not make them any the less fatuous or superficial.
We have spent almost 74 hours discussing part I of the Bill — an average of more than 12 hours per clause. There are at this stage 57 amendments on the Notice Paper on part II on which we have already spent a further six hours, and it does not require much study of those amendments to realise that most of them are not very substantial.
The motion provides ample time for the proper and full consideration of the remaining clauses. If the hon. Member for Garscadden is right about the minor nature of his amendments and if his spokesman was right as reported in The Scotsman last Friday, there is ample time to do the amendments justice as well.
The hon. Member for Garscadden cannot have it both ways. Either this motion gives enough time for discussion of these amendments and the remaining clauses or he intended all along to prolong the Committee proceedings well beyond the generous date provided in the motion. believe that his intention was the latter and not because I rely on my own judgment or because of the powerful arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries, (Sir H. Monro) and for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and others. Because I do not 174 ant to disappoint him, I look to the Opposition Whip on the Bill. During the debate on the housing support grant in the Chamber on Tuesday 31 January, the hon. Member for East Lothian said, when discussing whether the Bill should become law,


I earnestly hope that it will not, and I am doing all that I can in Standing Committee every Tuesday and Thursday to ensure that that date is delayed as long as possible." — [Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 223.]

That is why we tabled the motion, and that is why I ask the House to support it.

Main Question, as amended, put:

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 178.

Division No. 180]
[6.38 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Ailken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan


Alexander, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gorst, John


Ancram, Michael
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Aspinwall, Jack
Grant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St EdnTds)


Baldry, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Batiste, Spencer
Grist, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ground, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Grylls, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, John Selwyn


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Harris, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Browne, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayes, J.


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hickmet, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hirst, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon
Holt, Richard


Cope, John
Hooson, Tom


Corrie, John
Hordern, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Durant, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensboume)


Eggar, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Evennett, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Irving, Charles


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Fletcher, Alexander
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Forman, Nigel
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Key, Robert


Forth, Eric
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fox, Marcus
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Knowles, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Knox, David


Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Gale, Roger
Lang, Ian


Galley, Roy
Latham, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lawler, Geoffrey





Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lester, Jim
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John.
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fst)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McQuarrie, Albert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Merchant, Piers
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Tapsell, Peter


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Terlezki, Stefan


Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moore, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Norris, Steven
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Philip
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waddington, David


Osborn, Sir John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walden, George


Parris, Matthew
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pink, R, Bonner
Ward, John


Pollock, Alexander
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Porter, Barry
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Watts, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitfield, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Woodcock, Michael


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mr. David Hunt and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Alton, David


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Anderson, Donald






Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashdown, Paddy
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Ashton, Joe
Howells, Geraint


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
John, Brynmor


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kirkwood, Archibald


Boyes, Roland
Lambie, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lamond, James


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Loyden, Edward


Buchan, Norman
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McGuire, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cartwright, John
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clarke, Thomas
McNamara, Kevin


Clay, Robert
McTaggart, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Martin, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Cowans, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meacher, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunningham, Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pendry, Tom


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Penhaligon, David


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Ellis, Raymond
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, M.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foulkes, George
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freud, Clement
Rowlands, Ted


Garrett, W. E.
Ryman, John


George, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gourlay, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Hattersley, Rt Hon.Roy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Haynes, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Stott, Roger


Heffer, Eric S.
Strang, Gavin





Straw, Jack
Wareing, Robert


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Weetch, Ken


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Welsh, Michael


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thome, Stan (Preston)
Wilson, Gordon


Tinn, James



Torney, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. John Home Robertson.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 20th March 1984.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth clay on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted day

7. On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph 7 of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.'.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for


consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded,

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of

the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on the allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration r proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order— 
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

OPPOSITION DAY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Immigration Rules

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg tomove,
That this House condemns the operation of the Immigration Rules which have a devastating and oppressive effect on family life by the often humiliating treatment of parents, children, spouses, would-be spouses and bona fide visitors.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Kaufman: Last autumn and winter hon. Members debated on three separate occasions various drafts of new immigration rules that the Government submitted to the House. That episode was a sorry story of vacillation, ineptitude and hypocrisy. Finally, in February of last year, the House approved new immigration rules which were not what the Labour party wanted, were not what either of the two mutually antagonistic groups on the other side wanted, and were certainly not what the Government wanted.
This debate is not about the content of those rules, the principles contained in them or the lack of principle that motivated them; it is about how those rules, after a year, are working in practice and about the avoidable human anguish and humiliation that is being inflicted on innocent people by the harsh and discriminatory manner in which they are being operated.
The very first sentence of the rules, uncharacteristically for the former Home Secretary, and, indeed, for his successor, is a joke, though of a decidedly sick variety. Paragraph 2 says:
Immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom.
It ges on to declare:
The powers conferred by the Act are to be exercised without regard to a person's race, colour or religion.
I have to tell the House that the way in which immigration officers carry out their duties—the way in which powers are exercised — is far too often racialist in effect. Whether it is also racialist in intent I leave the House to judge on the basis of the evidence that I shall offer.
This is how the situation was summed up at the end of last year by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, an organisation whose experience with numerous cases prevents it from taking an over- sentimental or over-emotional view. The council said:
The Home Office is acting by stealth in operating immigration control through measures not ostensibly designed to control immigration. Thus, increasingly, Home Office collaboration with the Department of Health and Social Security leads to individuals being refused benefits so that they are starved out of the country before they can challenge Home Office decisions about their status … Covert action is also taking place overseas. In the Indian sub-continent, more and more applications from families of men settled here are being refused. In 1981 the proportion refused was 29·8 per cent. By 1982 it was 37·4 per cent. and since then it has increased to 40 per cent. This does not reflect any public change in the Immigration Rules.
The council went on:
But the dramatic increase in the number of families who are refused the right to be reunited reflects more than individuals' difficulties. It demonstrates a hardening of attitudes amongst entry clearance officers which is a result of a deliberate Government policy of preventing the entry of black people to

Britain. In a desperate attempt to win the numbers game, it is denying families a right they have been granted by Parliament because it refuses to believe their evidence of entitlement. It is a hidden form of race discrimination, far away from the sensitive protest in this country.
Last year the House finally changed the rules which for three years had prevented many husbands and male fiancés from applying to enter Britain. The change was not what Labour Members would have wished, but it was certainly an improvement on what went on before. Or was it?
Like many hon. Members, I have constituents who have been prevented from marrying by the old rules. When the change of rule came in, they looked forward to a speedy and favourable decision. Some male fiances had applied for entry literally years ago. They now found that instead of a swift decision, they would get no decision, that they had to apply all over again, as if they had never applied before, and that they would have to wait many months for a new interview even if they had already been interviewed. That heartless administrative decision alone caused much disappointment and disruption in lives. Delays in interviews can often have a damaging or even devastating effect on family life. Waiting times for interviews fluctuate, but they are never less than many months. The Government admit that in Bangladesh the waiting time has now got much longer—20 months.
Here is an example of the upsetting effect of such a delay on the life of one small family. It is the example of a British citizen wife, legally entitled to bring her husband to the United Kingdom but frustrated by administrative difficulties. Her name is Rajea Begum and her husband has been waiting since January 1983 in Bangladesh for an interview at the relevant high commission.
In May 1983, a letter was written to the British High Commission asking that, as her father with whom she was living was seriously ill, and she herself was pregnant, her husband's application should be speeded up to enable him to join her and to assist her. Nothing of the sort was done. A few months later, her father died. Shortly afterwards, Rajea Begum had her baby, without the presence of any close relatives. The high commission states that her husband will not be interviewed until January 1985, two years after his initial application.
Interviews, when they do take place, can be capricious and arbitrary. Let us look at the example of Mojir Uddin —again, a Bangladeshi. His father was a British citizen by registration who had lived and worked in the United Kingdom for 20 years, periodically returning to Bangladesh. His wife and five children now wished to join him in the United Kingdom. Eventually all the applicants, except Mojir were issued with entry clearance. That child was refused on the ground of not being related, as he claimed, solely on the basis of a visual age assessment that he was about two years older—13—than his stated age of 11. On appeal, expert evidence showed the gross unreliability of such medical assessment. That was submitted, and the appeal was allowed, but the fact remains that Mojir Uddin was separated from the rest of his immediate family for about a year.
Let us take another example — once more from Bangladesh—this time of a lady, Muziban Nessa. That recently married lady applied for entry clearance to join her husband in the United Kingdom for the purpose of settlement. She was refused on the ground of not being related, as claimed. Great stress was placed on the fact that she was unable to name the members of her husband's


family who had attended the wedding. Hon. Members, looking back on their weddings, might like to try to recall how many of their spouse's families had attended. The questioning showed total ignorance of the normal practice in District Sylhet, Bangladesh, where, at the ceremony and celebrations, the bride stays in one room of the house among her immediate family, while the bridegroom mingles with his relatives and guests. This case is currently going to appeal. Meanwhile, Muziban Nessa is currently still separated from her husband who has had to return to work in England.
Unreasonable interviewing of this kind inevitably results in many refusals of leave to enter. The latest figures show that refusals to nationals of countries in the Indian sub-continent and West Africa are among the highest of all countries. The latest information from the Home Office, in the Department's own words, specifically shows:
In the latest twelve months compared with the previous twelve months there was a fall of 2,600 to 17,700 in acceptances from the Indian sub-continent and there were rises of 1,400 to 16,400 in acceptances from Commonwealth countries apart from India and Bangladesh and of 700 to 19,300 in acceptances from foreign countries excluding Pakistan. The number accepted from New Commonwealth countries and Pakistan in the latest twelve months was 28,700, compared with 30,200 in the previous twelve months.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department states the facts clearly, almost blatantly:
Many applications for entry clearance for immediate settlement are unsuccessful; in the latest twelve months, for example, over 40 per cent. of applicants in the Indian sub-continent were found not to satisfy the immigration rules.
Nor do these refusals come about by accident. Indeed, the previous Home Secretary gloried in them. When the House last debated these matters, he said:
The figures show that under this Government the number of people accepted has dropped sharply. In fact the statistics for acceptances during last year were the lowest since Commonwealth immigration control began 20 years ago. That is what we intended and, I am glad to say, what we have achieved."—[Official Report, 5 February, 1983; Vol. 37, c. 189.]
So let not the Home Secretary pretend that these figures are some kind of statistical accident or quirk. They are deliberate, they are intended, and they are biased racially and, in terms of the colour of those who apply, rejected.
The main argument in our debates last year was about how the immigration rules should affect husbands and male fiancés. It is especially husbands and male fiancés from the Indian sub-continent who have been adversely affected since the new and less strict rules were introduced. Due to waiting times, of course, the effect of the change may not yet be fully felt.
The latest published information shows that the refusal rate for husbands from India is 33 per cent., and for male fiancés more than twice that—69 per cent. For husbands from Pakistan, refusals are 25 per cent. of applications decided, and for male fiancés 47 per cent. The refusal rate for husbands from Bangladesh is a staggering 71 per cent., while for male fiancés it is even worse—in fact as bad as it can be—precisely 100 per cent. Half the husbands from the Indian sub-continent were turned down because it was alleged that the primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. For male fiancés, that reason accounted for 61 per cent. of refusals. If one adds those rejected because it was alleged that their

purpose was partly to obtain admission, the refusal rate for male fiancés went up to 83 per cent. Better figures are difficult to expect, since the rules put the burden of proof on the applicant. How does one prove that one's application is not intended to achieve admission, when the success of one's application will, of course, result in one's admission?
The treatment of people wishing to come here to join spouses, would-be spouses, children and parents is frequently unacceptable. A quite different form of harassment is inflicted upon those who have no intention of staying, but—

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what tests, if any, would apply to those males who wish to come here by reason of marriage?

Mr. Denis Howell: Marriage.

Mr. Budgen: Is marriage to be the only criterion?

Mr. Kaufman: Marriage is the criterion of people seeking to enter to become married. That is why they apply. No doubt the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would wish to add further tests, but the immigration rules lay down that people can apply to enter for the purpose of marriage. So what other test ought there to be? The fact is that a quite different form of harassment is inflicted upon those who have no intention of staying, but simply wish to come on a visit.
The Minister of State, of whom the worst I can say is that he is no improvement on his predecessor, and of whom the best I can say is that he is no worse than his predecessor, told the House a few days ago:
Visitors need not apply for entry clearance but may do so in order to ascertain in advance whether they are eligible for admission to the United Kingdom." — [Official Report, 29 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 222.]
I have to say quite flatly that I would never advise anybody with a brown or a black skin to come here as a visitor without obtaining prior entry clearance. Failure to take this precaution is to expose oneself to insult and humiliation, quite possibly followed by imprisonment and forcible removal from this hospitable land. Imprisonment goes under the pseudonym of detention, and for Heathrow airport the detention centre is at Harmondsworth. Between 1 January and 22 November last year, 2,350 people were detained at Harmondsworth. They came from 98 countries. Of those 2,350, 77 per cent. came from 31 New Commonwealth countries, together with Pakistan. Of those 2,350, 858 came from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh — no fewer than 37 per cent. The Government ought to post a notice at the airport saying: "If you come from the New Commonwealth, you are seven times as likely as anyone else to be detained at Harmondsworth. If you come from the Indian sub-continent, your chances of being detained are 36 times greater than those of anyone else." Yet the immigration rules solemnly promise that immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom.
Even when visitors are eventually admitted, they can first be subjected to forms of harassment which verge on the inhumane. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) recently exposed the scandal of Mrs. Monghiben Chavda. She is 90 years of age. That


might be thought to entitle her to some respect and regard. Unfortunately for her, she comes from India. That cancels respect and regard and substitutes revilement. Mrs. Chavda came here last summer to visit her son. She was given temporary admission, but was required a week later to go for an interview at East Midlands airport. She was interviewed for six hours. She was then told that she would be allowed to stay as a visitor provided that she signed a form promising that she would not apply to extend her stay while she was here. The form states:
I undertake not to apply for any extension of my stay in the United Kingdom for any purpose.
Paragraph 103 of the immigration rules specifically states not just that such an application may be submitted, but that, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, such application "should"—that is the word in the rules—be granted.
The form that Mrs. Chavda was obliged to sign was unlawful, yet she and her son were forced to sign it, and Mrs. Chavda was obliged to add her thumb print as well. What a repulsive and disgraceful way to treat a lady of 90. What kind of people would do such a thing? In a mealy-mouthed letter to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West, the Minister of State tried to brazen his way out. He said:
I do accept that the wording used on this occasion could be construed as an attempt to deny the passenger her lawful rights by administrative means. This clearly was not the intention".
What was the intention of getting an old woman of 90 to sign a form saying that she would not carry out her lawful right to extend her stay as a visitor in this country? That was one illegality committed in the sacred name of immigration control—the terrible fear that this country might he burdened with a 90-year-old woman.
Other decisions frequently turn out not to be in accordance with the law. A few days ago the Government were forced to admit that successful appeals to the adjudicator against immigration officers' decisions were the highest for the past eight years, and that the same applied to successful appeals to the immigration appeals tribunal.
Judged by legality as well as humanity, the Government are increasingly failing the test. What happens when people are admitted; when they obtain permission to stay; or even when they obtain permission to settle? Again and again, they are hounded, their rights are challenged, their peace of mind is destroyed and their family life is wrecked.
Maria Ouloupis came as a visitor from Cyprus and overstayed. The Home Office decided to make a deportation order and an appeal was lodged. In the months before the initial hearing, she married a British citizen. Despite the fact that she was eight months' pregnant and that it was accepted that the marriage was genuine, it was none the less held that the public interest outweighed the compassionate circumstances of the case. Maria Ouloupis has an unchallengeable legal right to come to this country, yet the Home Office contends that she first be deported, that she wait years until the deportation order expires, and then lodge a new application. Meanwhile, she has given birth to a baby who is a citizen of this country. She, with that baby, will be deported. They will be separated from the husband and father and then, after a period of years, justice having been done in the eyes of the Government, they will be allowed back into this country. That is happening again and again.
A constituent, Mr. Z. E. Mir, who lives at Longsight, is a decent law-abiding citizen whose life has been made a misery by this same vengeful technique of the Home Office. I recently had a letter from the Home Office about Mr. Mir, whose wife was deported to Pakistan. She had their baby in Pakistan. The letter makes everything all right. The deportation order is being revoked because it is now established that in 1979 Mrs. Mir had the right to marry her husband. That is all right, is it not? They have been separated, the baby has been born away from the father, the father has been separated from his wife, but right will now be done.
When someone becomes the object of the Government's attentions in this way, the ingenuity and application devoted to the task by Home Office officials would, if applied to the unemployment problem, provide work for millions.
If someone's status is in doubt, and if they cannot be deported, an attempt is made to starve them out of the country instead. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has put it in this way:
The 1980 Supplementary Benefit Act specifically excludes certain people from being able to claim benefits of any kind. Overstayers and those whom the Home Office alleges to be illegal entrants are not eligible for benefit. This has led to great hardship for a significant number of people.
What is more, there is an increasing number of reports that people with Asian names are being asked to produce their passports to Department of Health and Social Security offices. I ask the Home Secretary to repudiate that practice, which differentiates between one kind of citizen of our country and another.
If the House wishes to know of someone who has been the object of almost everything that the Home Office can think up to throw at someone who has the unfortunate disability of having a brown skin and of being a woman, I refer it to the story of my constituent Parveen Kahn. She entered this country perfectly legally. She married a constituent of mine who was also thought to be here legally, but it turned out that he was not. He had been brought here at the age of 13 under another boy's name. He was too young to know that he was breaking the law or even that there was a law to break. He was also too young to know that he qualified for the Labour Government's amnesty, so he did not apply for it. He continued in what he thought was a normal course of life and he married Parveen Kahn. They had two children. Then the Home Office served him with a deportation notice. It also served the wife with a deportation notice. The Home Office said that she came here "by positive misrepresentation" — pretending that her husband was settled here — even though she thought that she was settled here.
The Home Secretary admitted to me:
We accept she did not appreciate that her husband's stay here was unlawful.
What was the lady's crime? It seems that she was still guilty of misrepresenting something, even though she did not know what she was misrepresenting. She had to go. The Home Office offered to pay the children's fares home. Since their birthplace and home are in Manchester. I assume that the Home Office offered them bus passes.
The stress of this intolerable situation proved too much for Mr. Kahn. He left his wife. She then had no means of support. The Department of Health and Social Security refused to help her. She was left by the Government to starve. Naturally, I went on pressing her case, and recently


the Home Secretary agreed that Mrs. Kahn could now stay. Here she was, and here she now is. Thanks to the Home Office, her marriage has been destroyed and she has spent a long period almost destitute. No doubt Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) regard that as a job well done, just as the present Minister seems proud of what he is doing to Rashida Abedi —the deaf Pakistani woman in Croydon, to whose pleas to remain here he was even more deaf.

Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman deals with individual cases. Will he set out the principles by which a future Labour Government will or will not control immigration?

Mr. Kaufman: The principles by which a Labour Government will or will not control immigration are those of humanity—those by which I would have expected my parents to be treated when they came to Britain as immigrants. If they had been treated according to these rules, I would not be present tonight. I would probably have ended up in a gas chamber. I wish the country to return to the sort of principles on which it used to operate and from which the Government have departed so cruelly and heartlessly.
There are many hurdles to leap. If someone has conquered all those hurdles—has been allowed into the country to stay for the full qualifying period that permits him to apply for permanent residence and actually been awarded the right to permanent residence—and wishes to take the final step to become a British citizen, he will find that that process costs him money. It will cost him £70 to register and £200 to be naturalised. What is more, the Government are making a 42 per cent. profit from this business. That it is regarded as a business was made plain by the Minister, when he said:
There is no doubt how a manufacturing concern taking, say, two years to make a product and deciding in 1982 to change over from asking for payment on completion of work to payment in advance would approach the matter. The firm certainly would not have said that payments of £3·79 million received in 1982–83 for work done in 1981–82 should be lumped with £7.16 million received on new orders not to be completed until the following year and that the profit for 1982–83 should be arrived at by setting those two sums against the manufacturing costs of 1982–83… It is ridiculous to talk about cash surplus as a profit". —[Official Report, 21 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 147.]
What a preposterous and odious way to describe the process of acquiring British citizenship. We have been described as a "nation of shopkeepers", but I was unaware that one of our consumer products was allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs unanimously denounced those fees as long ago as 4 May 1983. After nearly a year, the Government have made no reply to it. In October they promised an answer shortly, but "shortly" is not yet here. On 6 February 1984, the Minister told the Select Committee that he would give a detailed response by the end of the month. It is now 5 March, and there has still been no reply. Presumably the Government cannot think of a response that would not be received with well-merited derision and scorn. The Government deserve not only derision and scorn, but anger and contempt for the damage that their oppressive use of the immigration rules has inflicted on the family life of innocent men, women and children.
A few weeks ago the Home Office issued a press notice boasting that for its new naturalised Asian application form it had been awarded a prize in a competition for plain English awards. The House and the country will be impressed when the Home Office wins an award not for plain English, but for plain humanity. On its present record, it is not even qualified to enter for that competition. That is why we shall ask the House to vote for our motion.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the operation of the Immigration Rules provides the right basis for a firm and fair immigration control which combines a necessary scrutiny of entitlement to settle here with respect and support for family life and proper treatment of visitors to this country.
The other day I happened to pick up a book and look at the index, and in it I read that Kaufman came after Kant. We have heard a lot of humbug tonight from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), whose speech was humbug from start to finish, as I shall illustrate.
Virtually every hon. Member knows that we must have immigration control. Successive Governments have accepted the need for it, and even the Labour party today and the right hon. Gentleman pay lip service to that need. The right hon. Gentleman sought to obscure the fact that immigration control in general must mean immigration control in particular, and that it means making decisions which individual people—they may be perfectly decent people—will find unpalatable. However, it means that in some cases people will suffer a measure of hardship, and that is the fundamental point that the right hon. Gentleman skated over. He cannot quote a number of cases and say that they show that control is not being operated correctly. The right hon. Gentleman paid lip service to control, and said that the Government were running a hard control. He cannot have it both ways. If there is to be control, hard decisions will have to be made, and we must face that.
All hon. Members know that the subject of immigration control arouses strong emotions. Because it does, it behoves us all to speak with moderation and to calm things down, not stir them up. For all the right hon. Gentleman's bluster and fulminations, there has always been a great deal of common ground between the parties, and we are glad of it. Just as the right hon. Gentleman stirred things up today, so the Labour party tried to stir things up at the general election, but nobody paid the blindest bit of notice. Why should they have done? After all the Labour party promised to repeal the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, but when it came to power it did precisely the opposite. In 1968 it did not repeal the 1962 legislation, but extended it to United Kingdom passport holders. In 1969 it introduced new rules for husbands, which were considerably tougher than the rules we have now. The rules allowed entry to husbands only in cases of exceptional hardship. In 1971 history repeated itself. The Labour party opposed the Immigration Act 1971 and promised to repeal it, but in office the Labour Government did not touch it in the slightest detail and for five years they were happy to leave it on the statute book.
The Opposition now complain about the 1980 and 1983 rules, but, however hard they try, they cannot make them


look like a revolution in immigration control because all hon. Members know that in 1980 the Conservative Government were building on the 1977 changes in the rules made by the Labour Administration. Let no one forget that it was the Labour Government who in 1977 introduced the first rule against marriages for immigration purposes. So much for what the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago about anybody who married being entitled to enter this country.
The ethnic minorities recognise why the Government, in their interests as in the interests of the community as a whole, have to operate a firm control. They recognise that without firm control people will fear for their jobs and that there will be others ready to play on those fears and, by stirring up resentment against newcomers, to destroy the efforts of those working for harmony in our society and for good community relations. The motion says that the operation of the present rules is an attack on family life. I find that pretty odd, given that the rules provide for entry clearance precisely for family reasons, and that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that two thirds of all those accepted for settlement last year were members of families, and wives, children, husbands, parents or grandparents of people already settled here.
The fact is that the rules are there not to attack but to support family life. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that our entry clearance procedures are oppressive and that long waits are involved. That was part of his case, but my answer to that is "Fiddlesticks." Let us consider the figures. At the end of 1983, someone in the non-priority queue in Delhi for entry clearance had to wait 7·5 months for interview. In March 1979, when the Labour Government left office, the waiting time in Delhi for non-priority cases was six to 12 months. In 1983, in Islamabad the waiting time for interview in non-priority cases was 9·25 months, but when the Labour Government were in power in 1979 the waiting time for such cases was 20 to 23 months, or more than twice as long.
At the end of last year the waiting time for interview in non-priority cases in Dhaka was 20 months, whereas it was 22 months in 1979 when the Labour Government were in power. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for Gorton has the gall to tell us that people are having to wait for a cruel and inhuman time for their applications to be dealt with. He then looks askance when I talk of humbug, yet none of us has heard such humbug for many months. The right hon. Gentleman glossed over the fact that at least half of the people in Dhaka are in the priority queue, rather than the non-priority queue, and that a newly married wife will wait precisely one month for an interview. In Bombay, a newly married wife will wait just three weeks for an interview. Is that inhuman, oppressive treatment of people waiting for entry clearance? Of course not.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Minister may have missed the point, which is that it is the Government's change in the rules and the way in which they have interpreted them that has made the situation inhuman and oppressive. Does the Minister intend to move on to the way in which the Government are applying and interpreting rule 41, under which the onus is on the immigrant to prove that his primary purpose is not to gain entrance to the United Kingdom? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deny what many of our immigrant families believe, which is that special orders have gone to

entry clearance officers that they should trick potential applicants into answers that appear to be incriminating, even though the families are plainly genuine?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to suggest that I would omit the subject of husbands and fiancés, which I shall come to in due course. He is not correct to suggest that the only matter raised by the right hon. Member for Gorton was the waiting time for husbands and fiancés. The right hon. Gentleman was saying nothing of the sort. He was accusing the Government of keeping all applicants waiting much longer than was the case when the Labour Government were in office. That was humbug and a complete distortion of the facts.
I come to a topic that is of the utmost importance in view of the absurd and irresponsible attack by the right hon. Member for Gorton. The refusal rate for family applications in Bangladesh has gone up from 39 per cent. in 1979 to 56 per cent. in 1983. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a sign of oppressive control, and that when the Labour Government were in office only 39 per cent. of family applications were turned down compared with 56 per cent. in 1983. However, he might like to know that in 1977, when the Labour Government were in office, 62 per cent. of family applications were turned down. That was the oppressive control of a Labour Government.
No one who had studied this issue for five minutes would argue that the refusal rates of 23 per cent. in India and 35 per cent. in Pakistan in 1983 pointed to oppressive control, because no one who had studied the subject for five minutes could fail to be aware of the problems facing our entry clearance officers. Hon. Members know perfectly well that there are several reasons for the high rate of refusals in, for example, Dhaka. During the past year the entry clearance officers there have been concentrating on cases needing a second or third interview. They are, by definition, cases in which doubts have arisen and refusal is therefore a more likely outcome. Incidentally, that concentration on re-interviews took place at the express request of the Sub-Committee of the Home Affairs Committee. The House will also know that there have been particular problems in Dhaka over the years.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister has explained that the interviews are difficult, and their aim is to establish whether the primary purpose is to obtain entry to the United Kingdom. However, could Members of Parliament have transcripts of the interviews so that they can see what has happened?

Mr. Waddington: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not concentrating on my speech, but I have not yet reached the subject of husbands and fiancés. I was dealing with family applications because of the absurd criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Gorton concerning the alleged treatment of such applications in the sub-continent. I was pointing out that there are problems when it comes to dealing with such family applications.
The House will know, for example, that there has been great difficulty in establishing where the truth lies. Too many people still take bad avice from agents, produce bogus documents, and tell lies to cover up earlier tax frauds, and those problems have been particularly acute in Bangladesh. But when I went to the sub-continent I was very impressed with the way in which our staff carried out


its work and so was the Home Affairs Sub-Committee when it visited the immigration service in the sub-continent, and reported:
We consider Entry Clearance Officers and their seniors do a first class job in extremely difficult circumstances".
That is some all-party evidence that rebuts what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to foist on the House.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister comment on the experience of independent bodies that have investigated many of the applications made in Bangladesh and subsequently refused? In a very high proportion of those cases the applications were found to be genuine. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the independence of those studies, or does he reject them?

Mr. Waddington: We looked into the cases which could be traced. I remember looking into one batch of cases, but we could not trace about 50 per cent. of them. Of the others, we granted entry to one or two applicants. One man from the part of the world represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) was granted entry. The hon. Member knows better than to suggest that we do not make the most careful examination of any cases brought to our attention.
I am amazed that so often people talk about families being separated because of immigration control. We must put the matter in perspective. We are talking about the young members of families who decide to leave their country and parents behind to come here. That is their right, but the separation takes place because of the children's decision to emigrate. One of the most unfair criticisms of any system of control is that it separates members of a family. The people themselves bring about the separation. We make no apology for saying that we should not accept parents unless they have no one else close to them in their own country to whom they can turn. We must remember the implications of allowing unfettered entry for the National Health Service and other services.

Mr. David Winnick: The Minister has skipped over one or two important issues, including the grave difficulties faced by many when trying to come within the immigration rules. Does the Minister accept that sponsors in the United Kingdom, many of whom have been here for years, have paid their taxes and contributed to the National Health Service, have no motivation other than to look after aged parents? Perhaps they want to care for a mother in her seventies. They feel obliged to look after her. Is that wrong? Is that a disgrace or stigma on the family?

Mr. Waddington: Of course it is not wrong. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) knows well that immigration officers often have to deal with people who say that they are coming her as visitors. Under the rules the immigration officers must be satisfied that the people are genuine visitors and will not stay. In the straightforward case of an application by parents to live here permanently it is not just a question of whether the children have the wherewithal to support them, but that public services are involved. I am talking not only of national assistance, but of the National Health Service and

other services which could be involved when elderly people come here. We must bear that in mind when considering immigration control.
The motion is absurd when, referring to family life, it mentions "would-be spouses". The essence of being a would-be spouse is that the person does not have a family life with the other would-be spouse—or at least he or she should not have, save in prospect.
That brings me to the kernel of the matter. Our policy allows a woman who has close ties with Britain to be joined by her husband. If a woman is not a British citizen it is not unreasonable to expect her to live with her husband in the country in which he or she is a citizen. We are not prepared to allow marriage to be used as a route to immigration.
One can see the absurdity. Having tightened up on work permits to prevent young men coming here on to the labour market, we cannot allow the same young men to come here by using marriage as a device. That would be the ultimate absurdity and we shall not perpetrate it.
The right hon. Member for Gorton suggested that controls for husbands and fiancés are oppressive. The 1983 rules made a relaxation, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded. The overall refusal rate as a result has fallen, not risen. One would not have thought that, listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The overall refusal rate for husbands and fiancés fell from 63 per cent. in 1982 to 48 per cent. in 1983.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House of the promise by Lord Whitelaw that if the rules were shown to be significantly more lax than the previous rules the Government would examine them with a view to tightening them?

Mr. Waddington: I remember exactly what was said. A forecast was made of how many additional applications would be made as a result of the relaxation of the rules. The forecast was between 2,500 and 3,000. In fact about 2,200 additional applications have been made. I am talking about applications, not the number accepted for settlement. In 1983 the numbers accepted for settlement were not the same as the number of applications. So far as I remember only about 300 are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-West (Mr. Budgen) cannot deduce from the figures that events have unfolded in a manner not anticipated in the debate last February.
The overall refusal rate was reduced because the criterion for entry was relaxed. The refusal rate on primary purpose is up. That is not surprising because before 1 January 1983 people often could not get over the first hurdle of proving that the woman had a connection by birth with this country. The refusal rate on primary purpose alone is still only 25 per cent. On primary purpose and on another ground the refusal rate is 36 per cent. It is absurd to suggest that the test is impossible to surmount.
The best example of the humbug and distortion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he said that the refusal rate for fiancés in Bangladesh was 100 per cent. I shall tell the House how it is possible for him to produce that figure. Only three applications from the whole of Bangladesh were made in 1983. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that such fudging of statistics will help the House we might as well give up and go home. That is not the behaviour that one expects from a right hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister is courteous, as is the staff of his private office. Does he accept that some of our women constituents are married with perhaps two children born in London, and yet their husbands cannot join them? Is it possible for us to see the transcripts of interviews which cause entry clearance officers to refuse entry?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that there is such a thing as a transcript. I have sat in on interviews and seen the entry clearance officers make notes of what is said by applicants. They are punctilious. I was impressed when in the sub-continent to note how often, when a damning admission was made by the applicant, the question was put again. The applicant was given the opportunity to correct it, yet he repeated the same damaging statement. It is not realistic to talk in terms of a transcript when we are not speaking of a shorthand note or anything remotely like it. I emphasise again that, when one looks at the figures and at the fact that the overall refusal rate went down between 1982 and 1983, one cannot talk about oppressive control.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister accept that there is anxiety among many families of Asian origin about the operation of the primary purpose rule because they feel that it is used to avoid accepting applications in geniune cases? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman further accept that such anxiety could perhaps be allayed if the instructions given to entry clearance officers about the detailed criteria which they should use to adjudge primary purpose issues were published? Will he agree to such publication?

Mr. Waddington: For obvious reasons it has never been the practice of any Government to publish such instructions. We recently published instructions following undertakings — the right hon. Member for Gorton referred to this—and it is proper to publish instructions which tell immigration officers the form in which statements should be taken from people who arrive, for instance, at Heathrow. It would be entirely different, however, to publish instructions which might instruct people on how they might evade control.
In relation to visitors, the rules require that immigration officers should satisfy themselves that the people in question are genuine visitors. Our immigration officers do a difficult job well, and to suggest, as the right hon. Member for Gorton did on 21 February 1984 as reported in column 1292 in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, that they ask questions deliberately to confuse and that they ask completely irrelevant questions, such as how many trees are in the person's garden, is a nasty slander. That is the only way in which it can be described.
The number of people refused entry is very small. In 1983, of all those seeking to enter this country from India —the number was slightly over 200,000—0·6 per cent. were refused entry. Of all those seeking entry in 1983 from Pakistan, 1·2 per cent. were refused entry. The right hon. Member for Gorton might say that even that percentage rate of refusal is too high. Consider what happened under Labour. In 1975, the rate of refusal for India was 0·7 per cent.; in 1976, 0·6 per cent.; and in 1978, 0·5 per cent. In other words, the rate of refusal under Labour was almost the same as the rate in recent years. The same has been true of Pakistan. In 1975, the rate of refusal for passengers from Pakistan was 1·5 per cent. and in 1976 it was 1·4 per

cent. In other words, in those two years the rate was higher than in the last year. In 1978, for Pakistan, it was the same at 1·2 per cent.
Where on earth in those figures can there be any cause for complaint? How can a case be made for the proposition that there is oppressive control under the Tories and relaxed control under Labour? To refer to the figures as evidence of oppressive and humiliating treatment is humbug and is the kind of deliberate distortion of the facts that causes such harm. It is stirring for the sake of stirring, no more and no less.
On 31 January 1984, the right hon. Member for Gorton, at columns 851 and 852 of the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, talked in the context of the powers of arrest under the Immigration Act. He spoke of people being hauled off to remand centres, of the thousands of cases that he had taken up on behalf of his constituents, of the persecution of his constituents, of misery and humiliation.
I have had a check done. Since January 1983, the right hon. Member for Gorton has taken up with the Home Secretary and myself a total of 94 cases which have any connection with immigration control, and I include in that number even queries about entry clearance overseas. I gather that only three of those cases involved any arrest. Furthermore, the House will be interested to know that of seven recent court refusal cases of his, at which I looked this morning, one person has been removed, two have been granted admission, two are still under consideration and, as for the other two, they, having been granted temporary admission, have done a disappearing trick. The right hon. Gentleman will be in some difficulty if he tries to persuade the House that the immigration officer was wrong in their cases. If the right hon. Gentleman told on his travels whoppers such as those he told upstairs in Committee, he would have a job getting through any immigration control in the whole wide world.
What of those who have run foul of our immigration laws and have been detained or deported? During the Committee proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the right hon. Member for Gorton talked also of
widespread persecution…harassment of hundreds of thousands of people from the Indian subcontinent".— [0fficial Report, Standing Committee E; 31 January 1984, c. 852 ]
and of indiscriminate arrest and of it being used as a racist power.
In 1983, 6,848 people were detained at Heathrow and Harmondsworth. The right hon. Gentleman called that disgraceful. Most of them were no doubt black, he would probably say. In 1978, when the Labour party was in power, how many were then detained at Heathrow and Harmondsworth? Not 6,848, not 7,848 but 12,981 — nearly twice the number. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether only two of those were black? Again, what he said was complete humbug and a distortion of the facts, just to stir for the sake of stirring.
Next, consider the question of those who, having been refused entry to this country, are then granted temporary admission. That is a good hallmark, I would have said, of whether we operate an oppressive or fairly relaxed control. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will know how often they make representations to me and how often the person in respect of whom they have made representations is granted temporary admission and, accordingly, gets the


visit to his relatives for which he had asked. It is proper that we should use that method of temporary admission to help people in that way.
In 1978, when the Labour party was in office—the Government who operated the humane control which caused hardship to none, as the right hon. Member for Gorton would put it — 3,874 people were granted temporary admission. In 1983, 7,292, twice as many, were granted temporary admission, were granted that sort of indulgence under Tory rule.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we are thankful for the consideration that he has shown my constituents in allowing so many of them to come to spend a happy family holiday in Lancaster?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. We have reason to be proud of the fact that we are operating the control in a more relaxed way than it was operated under Labour, and it is sheer humbug for the right hon. Member for Gorton to pretend otherwise.
It is interesting to consider also how many deportation orders were made and enforced. There were 815 orders enforced in 1983 and 714 in 1978. The right hon. Member for Gorton was talking about a reign of terror. He talked of people being humiliated, arrested and carted off. However, about the same number of people were deported each year under the Labour Government as are deported under this Government. No one could describe the figures as evidence of widespread persecution.
Immigration control is bound to lead to decisions that are not liked, but a strict policy is in the interests of everyone, including those who came here as immigrants not so long ago. This is a facile motion which avoids all the real issues. It is fatuous in its emphasis on family life when it is entry for family reasons which is preferred under the rules. I call upon the House to reject the motion and to support the amendment.

Mr. James Lamond: I am sorry to have to tell the Minister of State that his speech was disappointing. I want to treat this subject seriously, because it is of great importance to many of my constituents, some of whom have come to London because of the interest that they have in it. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have praised him on occasion for his actions and I have always found his private office to be exceptionally helpful. The duty officer at the Home Office has similarly been helpful.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to defend the Government's record by contrasting it with that of the Labour Government. If he is to do his job properly, he should not be making comparisons, odious or otherwise, with the Labour Government's record. He should be comparing what he does with common decency and compassion, and asking himself—

Mr. Waddington: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that in my actions I have shown that we act with common decency and compassion. However, the hon. Gentleman must concede, in fairness, that the case of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is that there has been an alteration

in policy and that control is now being operated in a cruel way when it was not previously. I have proved up to the hilt that that is sheer nonsense.

Mr. Lamond: I shall not give way too often, because I have promised to be brief. It is not good enough to compare the Government's record with that of the Labour Government and to expect my constituents who are affected by the control, and the hundreds of others in the north-west who are in the same position, to accept that as an excuse for what is going on. It is not honest and decent behaviour to do so.
The Minister of State accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of trying to base his argument on particular cases and to show how they had been treated. This is a debate about individual cases. We are not concerned merely with statistics. Those who consult me at my clinics in Oldham are not statistics to me. They are often men who have been separated from their families for as long as 10 years. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have brought to him cases of lengthy waits that men have undergone before their families have been able to join them. The very fact that they have been waiting for 10 to 12 years means that they waited during a period when a Labour Government were in office. I make no excuses for the previous Government. If that Government operated such controls, they are to be condemned as roundly as the Tory Government.
I want to try to get across to the Minister of State what is happening to those who have been waiting a long time for their wives and children to join them. A debate was initiated at the Tory party conference in October 1983 by many of the Conservative Members who are now sitting behind the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick: Proctor has gone. Where is Proctor?

Mr. Lamond: I think that the Minister will recall that I told him that I watched him deliver his speech on television and that I admired him for the staunch way in which he defended his policy of allowing families to be united. I regret to say that I cannot admire him tonight.
It took some bravery to advance the policy of allowing families to be united and to win the day at the Tory party conference. He said that that debate was about the rights of men who had come to Britain legally and who were asking that their wives and families be allowed to join them. He argued that the debate was not about primary immigration; he said that the request of the men involved was reasonable and correct and that it would be compassionate to accede to it. I can hardly believe that there is any Member of this place who would deny that fundamental right.
This debate is about the denial of a fundamental right, the right to family life. This right is recognised in international law. We know that EC law and even the restrictive immigration legislation and rules that now operate guarantee the entry of wives and children who are younger than 18, yet the Home Office is denying this right to thousands of dependants of British citizens solely because of the colour of their skin. People in Greater Manchester and other parts of Britain are suffering enforced separation from their families. Many of these people are Bangladeshi, Gujerati and Pakistani men who have contributed to Britain's industry and economy and are legally settled here. These men applied for their wives


and children to join them in accordance with their rights under British law. They did not realise what would happen to them.
Many of these wives have been waiting for five to 10 years for their right of unity with their husbands. In some instances, relatives have died apart while waiting because of long administrative delays. How is this done? The delays are not created openly; they are engineered by the use of all possible procedures and delays in the British high commission and embassies in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
No attempt is made to establish relationships at interviews. Instead, trivial differences in names are built up into major discrepancies. Account is taken in these interviews of the colour of a person's dress and the number of hens in the household. It has been asked whether we might see transcripts of the interviews. I accept that it would be difficult to provide them, but the adjudicators' reports and the papers that are made available to us when our constituents are making appeals show some of the reasons why relationships have been denied. Stories are increasing about the questions which are asked. When my own children were young, which is some years ago—most of us have not been involved with young families for some years—I tried out on them the sort of questions that are asked of children in Pakistan—for example, "How many uncles and aunts do you have?" It was difficult for my children, even in this country where we have smaller families than they have in Pakistan, to give an accurate answer.
I thought of the women who travelled considerable distances with all their children to be interviewed at an embassy. I imagined them being taken into the presence of a white man to be interviewed through an interpreter. I took into account the fact that their culture means that women in Pakistan, for example, are not accustomed to such conditions. I thought of them being questioned closely on issues which sometimes show a distressing lack of understanding of their culture. If we think along those lines, we begin to understand why discrepancies arise. I shall not go into some of the questions put to me. They are rather distressing. I am sure that no hon. Member would want his wife to answer the questions often asked of wives in Pakistan.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I ought to declare an interest, even when asking a question. I am chairman of the Indo-British Association, and see a number of people who come to this country. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is a danger of mythology in this matter? Doubtless some extreme and silly questions are asked, but people tend to generalise, as though such questions are always asked. Those who from time to time visit the Indian subcontinent — I recently took the trouble to ask people in immigration posts there about this —will know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about a minority of vexatious questions and that, on the whole, great efficiency and clarity and a good deal of humanity is shown by decent people.

Mr. Lamond: I have been to Bangladesh—although, I admit, some years ago — to observe the interview procedure. I concede immediately that we are asking the interviewing officers on our behalf to do a difficult job. I sometimes wonder whether they are sufficiently trained on the job and understand other cultures sufficiently. An

interviewing officer might ask about the colour of the sari worn by a woman at her wedding. Weddings may last four or five days, and naturally she might wear several saris in that time. An inaccurate answer might be noted, when the confused woman might have given the colour of the main sari she wore. That is a difficult point. We could approach this matter more humanely.
Innumerable women from the villages are trapped into conflicts about dates of birth or visits by their husbands. If there are not sufficient discrepancies in the answers, the applicant is said to look younger than she claims to be.
The family of Mr. Hashim, one of my constituents, faced this problem. The entry clearance officer claimed that his observation and a medical examination proved that Mr. Hashim's wife was 35, not 41 as claimed. II came as news to the medical profession that ages of adults could be determined in that way. I am sure that hardly any hon. Member could determine an hon. Member's age within two or three years, just by looking at him. I do not believe that we would go to the length of refusing an application by a wife to join her husband if she looked four or five years younger than alleged. That answer is used as a basis for refusing to allow wives and children to join the man.
I am sorry to use particular examples, but I wish to emphasise that I am not speaking about statistics. Another example is of a husband in my constituency who wanted his wife to join him. Their five children were interviewed, and four were accepted as members of his family, but the fifth, a girl, was said not to be the man's daughter. It was alleged that she was someone else's daughter. It is scarcely credible that the wife and the rest of the family would have remained for years in Pakistan rather than abandon a girl who was falsely alleged to be a daughter. That alone proves the case. The girl was one of the family. If she had been the daughter of another couple in Pakistan whom the applicants were hoping to smuggle in illegally, the family would merely have told her that, unfortunately, the plan had not worked, and gone to England with the remaining four children. The fact that the family did not do so proves that a mistake was made—and I put it no higher than a mistake.
In Oldham and many other towns, men in their forties, fifties and even sixties are still being refused visas for their wives to join them. That is an insult to common sense, let alone common decency and humanity. The Home Office, the Minister and everyone else know that those men are married. Why else do they apply year after year? Why do they send thousands of pounds to support non-existing families? Who are they visiting on their trips back to Pakistan, Bangladesh or India? Despite this, the Home Office is continuing to refuse them as "not related as claimed" and saying that it is not satisfied about the date of marriage, date of birth, and so on. We are left with an enormous queue, especially in Bangladesh, in which the Home Office acknowledges are many families applying a second, third or even a fourth time.
I have constituents whose cases have been going on since 1970 — 14 years ago. I have seen constituents whose wives and children have died while waiting for the Home Office to relent. The Home Office's response has been to try to stop families applying again by denying them interviews and, when they appeal, using the appeals rules to force the case to be dealt with by a written plea for a hearing as a preliminary issue. The case can then be automatically dismissed by the Home Office-appointed adjudicator without even a hearing.
I am a little tired of being told by the Home Office that my black constituents do not have wives and children. I am pleased that, during the past year or two, divided families — both locally and, increasingly, nationally —have begun a grassroots campaign to expose the injustices in the present Home Office machinery. That campaign is calling for a proper appeals system. At the moment, the appellant is not allowed even to attend the hearing of his or her case. The campaign insists that the burden to disprove the relationship should be placed where it belongs —on the Home Office, not on the applicant.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Should the Home Office not look at another aspect? A case has just been passed to me, and will shortly be coming to the Minister, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). For reasons that he and I find unacceptable, the entry of a certain gentleman has been refused. The gentleman, who is now a constituent of mine and no longer a constituent of my right hon. and learned Friend, has made a reasonable request, which I shall pass to the Home Office. His case is that, if the high commission does not accept the relationship he claims, why should it not provide the staff to go to the village and check locally in the local language whether his claim is justified? That is where the Home Office is likely to find the truth on the ground. I am sorry to make such a long intervention, but will the Under-Secretary of State say whether that type of service could and should be provided?

Mr. Lamond: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. A number of groups have gone abroad to carry out such visits to ascertain the truth. Some groups from my constituency have come home with evidence which, to be fair, has sometimes been accepted. They are convinced that the present method of questioning children and wives is a harsh way of deciding whether there is a correct relationship. Even the assertions of the Salvation Army, which investigated cases on the ground in Pakistan and so on and told the Minister that it was more than satisfied that the claims were correct, have been dismissed on the ground that the Salvation Army's investigation methods are not perhaps the most reliable in the world. The Under-Secretary of State should look closely at the possibility of more being done.
I have given some of the aims set out by the Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will note its requests.
I shall finish on a personal note. It is alleged by the members of the Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign in Oldham that, when the Minister was at a meeting in north-east Lancashire, he pledged that he would come to a public meeting to hear what the members of the campaign had to say about their own cases — not statistics, but cases involving men, women and children, some of whom have been waiting for many years. They were happy about the pledge that they alleged the Minister gave. I am not saying that he did give it—I was not present on that occasion. I understand that in a letter to the Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign the Minister said that he would not be able to attend such a public meeting. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision and take steps not only to meet the victims of those injustices but to accede to their proposals.
I shall not stop making representations until I am satisfied that my constituents, whatever their colour, are treated fairly and justly and are measured not against the record of any past Government but against the record of people being treated with compassion. They do not expect to be dealt with differently from anybody else in the community. They should not be guilty until they can prove their innocence; they should be innocent until the Government prove that they are guilty.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that we are already halfway through the debate. Many hon. Members with strong constituency interests are anxious to catch my eye, so I appeal for brevity.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The debate calls attention to the importance of family life. The important issue is that family life is the reason for control of immigration. It is an important part of British life, and it is what we want to protect.
Family life can mean different things in different parts of the world. Asian families can be very extended. It is many years since I was in Mysore, but I vividly recall visiting the Maharajah's residence. I went round his garage, in which there were 100 Rolls-Royces. I asked why he should need 100 Rolls-Royces, and was told that it was because he had a very large family. I understand that every room of his palace was filled with his relatives. Therefore, perhaps the size of the family in some countries depends on the size of the house.
In my constituency in Bolton, the average size of the household of families of New Commonwealth and Pakistan origin is nearly twice the national average. There are 4·5 people per household in Bolton compared with nearly half that figure for the country as a whole. In Bolton, 6·4 per cent. of the people are of New Commonwealth and Pakistan origin, but the percentage of births to such mothers is much higher. The figure that is quoted is 18 per cent., but I am told that that is an understatement and that it could be higher. That is the twenty ninth highest proportion in England and Wales, and implies an increasing ethnic population in future. The figures are an understatement. The report from the council states:
Immigrant fathers are not included in Bolton's birthrate statistics, whilst some of Bolton's immigrant population has been resident long enough for the formation of households of Asian origin whose heads were born in this country.
Therefore, the figure is above rather than below 20 per cent.
The greatest effect on family life is in welfare state provision. I am concerned about trends that have been reported to me, for which I do not have the figures. They concern the adverse effects on Asian families. I am told that more and more Asian children are going into care, that there are more Asian divorces, that there is more domestic violence involving child battering among Asian families, and more claims on the Department of Health and Social Security for urgent needs, especially when the head of household goes abroad—

Mr. Faulds: Is it not true that under this appalling Government all the factors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apply to all sections of the community?

Mr. Thurnham: The point that I am making is that the welfare state is not helping to keep Asian families together in the way to which they have been accustomed. They have been used to looking after each other.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a policy of discrimination should be pursued within the provision of the National Health Service and welfare benefits?

Mr. Thurnham: Of course not. I am saying that the same rule should apply to all. I take great exception to the idea that the head of a household in this country can visit his family abroad, leaving the rest of his family in this country dependent upon the state. There have been such cases in Bolton, when the family has been able to claim under urgent needs. Such a situation should not have arisen in the first place. I suggest that members of the Asian community should set up their own funds to provide their own money, should they need to travel abroad.

Mr. David Alton: If the hon. Gentleman went abroad on holiday, or to work, and a member of his family became ill, does he believe that the state should prevent that person from receiving benefit from the state or the National Health Service? If he does not believe that that should apply, why should it apply to British citizens of Asian origin?

Mr. Thurnham: That is not the problem. Constituents have come to see me when the head of the household has gone abroad deliberately, hoping that the welfare state will look after his family.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a stereotype of the Asian Community? Is he differentiating Asians from the rest of the population? If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, he is talking nonsense.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman's question takes me back to my original point. It depends what one means by the family. Asians feel that they have a responsibility to go abroad—their families embrace more than their immediate family in this country—whereas our typical understanding of the family is of a smaller unit. I have no sympathy for people who believe that they can travel abroad—

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Thurnham: I cannot accept any more interventions on that point.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the way in which he has administered cases that I have brought to his attention. There will always be people caught in the gate when one applies these rules. My experience of the Home Office is that it has looked after such cases extremely well and attentively.
I am particularly pleased that the waiting period has come down from the 20 months that it was under the Labour Government to 10½ months on average for the four countries listed. Some constituents are greatly concerned about the length of time. One of my constituents, Mrs. Yaqub, has been kept waiting for some time. I should be pleased if the waiting time could be reduced further.
In conclusion, I should like to endorse the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: At first sight, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) gave a spirited defence of the Government's operation of the present immigration laws. The studied indignation of the hon. Gentleman would be a lesson for us all, but almost every hon. Member who represents a community with people from the ethnic minorities knows that what he was saying was bogus and bore almost no relationship to the facts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) was correct to say that the right for families to live together was a fundamental human right. It is a cheek for the Government amendment to refer to
respect and support for family life and proper treatment of visitors to this country
when we consider the record. Despite the mumbo-jumbo of statistics that the Minister quoted, I believe that the immigration rules and regulations are racist and sexist, and are applied in a racist and sexist way. The Government have been so occupied with the Right wing and the racists in their own party that they have been preoccupied with the numbers game to the total exclusion of the humanity that we expect in adequate immigration rules and regulations.
The Minister talked about visitors in glowing terms, as if the regulations were a holiday brochure. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that refusal of leave to enter this country being subsequently countermanded, because of the intervention of a Member of Parliament, was a great measure of humanitarian sympathy by the Government. Anyone with experience knows that is an offensive charade to the many genuine visitors to this country who are refused leave to enter on the most bogus grounds. The questions that they are asked are precisely those that the Minister has denied were asked.
For example, a constituent of mine who was sponsoring a visitor was asked how many hotels the man had at home. Because his answer differed from that given by the visitor, doubts were cast on the visitor's reliability and he was refused leave to enter. He stayed for the two months and subsequently returned to his family business, which had always been his intention. He had the so-called privilege of staying here for two months by permission of the Home Office, but that is no way to operate the system. Colossal delays take place throughout the operation of the immigration rules.
I have taken up the case of a family that has been stranded in West Germany since December. I have spoken and written to the Minister of State and have pressed the Home Office regularly. I have always been treated with courtesy by the Minister of State's office, but there is an almost stupefying immovability in the immigration service in such cases. A family with young children is stranded abroad. It is not living in the lap of luxury. Its resources are stretched and it is having to rely on charity overseas. I should be grateful for an answer on the Hassan case tonight.
We have been told that the right of male fiancés and husbands to enter this country is enshrined in the law, but the change in rule 41 means that the balance of proof falls on the applicant. That changed the situation dramatically and anyone refused entry cannot win. The former Home Secretary, now Viscount Whitelaw, said of the change:


those who have a genuine relationship that was not contracted for immigration reasons have no cause to fear it." —[Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 187.]
One of my constituents, Mrs. Kaur, married in India, but her husband has been refused entry to the United Kingdom on the ground that the primary purpose of the marriage was for immigration reasons. He cannot prove that that is not the case. It is impossible to prove it. That is the ultimate Catch 22. It is not satisfactory for Ministers to argue that the rule change applies in only a limited number of cases. The fact that it applies at all makes nonsense of the system.
We were also told by the former Home Secretary:
If there is a good reason for the husband to stay, there is discretion within the rules." —[0fficial Report, 15 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 365.]
That applies in the case of the breakdown of a marriage, but we are assured that discretion is operated humanely and with compassion and kindness. However, I have taken up with the Home Office the case of a man who came here through an arranged marriage and whose wife broke up the marriage. He has been living with another woman for two years and they have a 10-month-old child. The couple are not married and perhaps fall outside the rules relating to marriage, but both partners are seeking divorces from their previous spouses and the child is an important factor in their lives. Yet the Home Office has decided that Mr. Arjan Singh must leave this country. That is not a satisfactory operation of the discretion. It is not being exercised humanely.
The Minister of State mentioned hardship. Does he think that the cases to which I have referred and those that my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned are acceptable? If so, his view of acceptable hardship and the view of the overwhelming majority of decent people in this country are very different.

Mr. John Stokes: When I first read the motion, I was amazed at its bare-faced effrontery. I find the words almost incredible. I know that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is a nice person in private life, but he has an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate grossly when he is engaged in party political controversy. I wonder how many Labour Members who heard the right hon. Gentleman and then listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who tore the motion to shreds, will support the Opposition in the Division.
The motion is couched in extreme and vituperative language which might have been used against countries behind the iron curtain, but surely not against England. I rubbed my eyes as I read the extravagant language. I could not help thinking of the care with which our judges deal with immigration cases.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stokes: No. We do not have much time and I shall be brief.
I thought of the majesty of English law, the appeal to habeas corpus, ancient rights and the decency of our police, magistrates and immigration officers. I thought of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and his officials who give a tremendous amount of time and

thought to this matter. I thought of my many colleagues who write to my hon. and learned Friend on every immigration case that comes before them — and who write much more frequently about those cases than they do about cases involving our own subjects here in England.
Reading the Opposition motion, one would think that it referred to a dreadful tyranny in the middle ages or to a modern country ruled by ayatollahs, rather than to gentle, peaceful, tolerant, law-abiding England. I cannot think of any other country into which entry is as easy as it is into this country. No other country can compare with our record of receiving immigrants in such large numbers. In less than a generation, we have received millions of people of new races and, in the main, those people have settled here without riots and disturbances.
Governments of all parties, while realising that immigration control is essential in this small island, have, nevertheless, been generous in allowing such large numbers to enter our island. We must think about numbers now, particularly when we think about the large numbers of unemployed. I am naturally thinking of my own country and the west midlands.
If we look across the Channel to France and Germany, we see that they are starting to repatriate immigrants on a large scale. That is not happening here.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stokes: No. I have already said that I will not give way. This is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice.
After hundreds of thousands of primary immigrants have been received here, entry is now mainly reserved for dependants. Fairly large numbers still enter each year, though the numbers are starting to fall.
The motion refers to the
devastating and oppressive effect on family life".
It refers only to immigrants and includes not one word about the effect on the kindly, tolerant English people here who have received those new people, whose religion, customs, habits and manners are different from our own.
The strains and burdens of receiving those people has not fallen on bishops who write to The Times, on university professors or technical college lecturers or even on readers of The Guardian. The burden has fallen on ordinary, English working people whom Labour Members claim they represent as much as my hon. Friends and I do.
Let Labour Members go into the pubs and clubs in their constituencies and read out their motion. The reaction of ordinary English people, who are so decent, quiet and tolerant, might surprise them. England, this dear country, has from time to time done some shameful things in its history, but her treatment of immigrants is not one of them, and Labour Members should be ashamed of their motion.
We have not heard one word from the Opposition, in spite of many interruptions, of what they would do or what their policy is. They are supposed——

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us, for guidance, how it is possible for a Labour Member to say a word when the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) will not give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Stokes: The Labour party's proposals for immigration are so wide and far-reaching that any form of immigration control would prove difficult, if not impossible. It says that all British citizens should have the right of entry, and that husbands and fiancés of women here could also come in, and more children and relations should be allowed the right of entry as well. These far-reaching proposals would be unacceptable to the indigenous population.
Since this motion was first tabled, I have been at a loss to understand why the Labour party wished to raise the matter. There is no demand for it in the country, it can do us no good and, rather the contrary, may revive fears about immigration. The Opposition must be hard put to it to single out this subject on which to attack the Government. It only shows how far removed they are from knowing or understanding their constituents' real feelings.

Mr. David Alton: I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) had to say. It seemed in general to be similar to what the Minister said. It was characteristic of both the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and the Minister that they dealt with only one side of the argument. I am sorry that the generosity that I hoped to hear from them and other Conservative Members towards not only our indigenous population but those who have joined us here, mainly people of New Commonwealth origin, and who are making an important contribution to our community has not been heard in our debate.
The Minister said that we had to consider the effect on the Health Service of additional immigrants, and the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge talked about the effect of immigrants on unemployment. It is a great shame that we did not hear a word about the effect, for instance, on the Health Service if all the Commonwealth citizens who worked in it were to leave tomorrow. Sadly, what the Minister said simply echoed the words of the Prime Minister, who in 1978 said that she felt rather swamped by Britain's immigrant population. The real truth is that the number of people who came to this country in the first three quarters of last year was 14,800. If that figure is measured against the 100,000 people who will gather in Wembley for the Milk Cup final, it is put into perspective.
It is worth reminding the House that on Wednesday last the Church of England Synod, in what was a unanimous motion, said that it believed that the immigration rules and the British Nationality Act were contrary to Christian teaching. That view has also been put forward by the Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales, and has been voiced by many who have spoken from the Opposition Benches.
The starting point for Liberals in a debate of this kind is that we believe in the uniqueness and importance of every individual, regardless of colour, sex, creed or age. We have a historic commitment to the dismantling of barriers, and to preserving the identities of individuals, the enhancing of their opportunities to develop culture, religion and language in the context of coexistence. The Liberal party is proud of its traditions of fighting to protect and preserve diversity because it enriches British life. We are opposed to inflicting a stereotyped conformity on our people or anglicising, beyond recognition, the many facets

of humanity so wonderfully expressed in the presence of Commonwealth citizens and other immigrants in the United Kingdom.
For Liberals, the starting point is a commitment to a multiracial society. Our record in opposing apartheid abroad and discrimination at home is well documented. One of the principal reasons why I joined the Liberal party in the first place was that in 1967 my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, was the chief opponent of the Labour Government's Commonwealth Settlement Act 1967. Some 17 years later, my repugnance for racialism and discrimination remains, and the issues are still largely unresolved.
A constituent wrote to me recently about the 300 families at Magopa in South Africa who were being forcibly ejected and sent to Bophuthatswana, one of the 10 ethnically-based homelands. Some 3·5 million people have been resettled and 2 million more are to be removed forcibly against their will as part of the grand design of apartheid. That is an offence against humanity. Sadly, Her Majesty's Government have not been outspoken in condemning that policy. That is something that our immigrant community is looking to us to do.
I am not surprised that the Government have failed to speak out. That is consistent with the policy they have been pursuing since they were elected in 1979, a cornerstone of which was the British Nationality Act 1981. Ironically, that Act flows from a manifesto that pledged its profound concern for the family. It is now all too apparent that that concern manifests itself only so long as that family is white, in employment and lives in the blue chip suburbs of south-east England.
At the general election, the slogan had changed from concern about the family to 'Labour says he's black, the Tories say he's British." However, as Government policy has demonstrated, he can only become British if he can afford it. The fees for citizenship introduced by the Government are a disgrace. I give the House an example of a constituent who came to fight for this country during the second world war. He was a young man from Jamaica and he was prepared to pay the ultimate price in fighting for us. He was pictured in the local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo, at the time of his arrival, ready to serve as we did, with British servicemen in the fight for our freedom and liberty.
Some 40 years later, having married an English woman and had a family, he is 71 arid is told that he has to pay a fee of £70 if he wants to become a British citizen. When I wrote to him, the Minister said that it did not matter if the man did not become a British citizen because
it will not affect his circumstances
if he chooses not to purchase citizenship. That rather depends on the value that one places on citizenship. It inevitably affects that man's circumstances, his morale and sense of security. He has a sense of fear. Like 100,000 other people, he has been stampeded by fear into believing that he has to purchase British citizenship. The Government have unscrupulously been using this fear to profit from people's insecurity. It is reminiscent of people buying themselves out of bondage.
It is not surprising that, some months ago, a Liverpool-born black said to me that five generations from the time when his forefathers had arrived in Liverpool, in the immediate aftermath of the slave trade at the time of Wilberforce, they had simply moved half a mile up the


road. Martin Luther King, who championed the rights of black people in the United States of America, put it well when he said that black people have been
smothered in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society.
There are areas where black unemployment can be as high as 90 per cent. I can show any hon. Member who harbour doubts that there are areas in my constituency and other parts of Liverpool where that is the case. Anyone who allows it to continue is consigning people to an airtight cage of poverty from which it is desperately difficult to escape.
The treatment meted out to people arriving in the country also leaves a great deal to be desired, especially those who are here to visit relatives. Frequently, elderly people are held for long periods at air terminals and sometimes in detention centres, and increasingly they are subjected to interrogation. Yet we have the neck to call ourselves civilised, having treated people in that way.
I object similarly to the treatment meted out by the immigration authorities to individual families living here. It can only undermine good race relations. I tell the House of the case of a young Bangladeshi constituent of mine named Gias Uddin who was deported a few years ago. That young man had been here since the age of 10. He had been through primary and secondary schools here. Ultimately, the immigration authorities said that, because he could not prove that he was the son of the people with whom he had been living, he would have to return to Bangladesh. He was not able to prove who his parents were, despite an affidavit from them saying that he was their son. He did not have a piece of paper to prove who he was. Birth certificates are not to be had very easily in places such as Bangladesh. Unable to prove that they were his parents, he was finally deported, despite the representations of the Bishop and the Archbishop of Liverpool and those of many hon. Members on both sides of the House on behalf of that young man. It is treatment of that kind that undermines not only family life but good race relations and creates the kind of fear and insecurity to which I referred earlier.
I turn to the rules governing the ability of men to join their fiancées and wives. The House will recall that an amendment moved by the Liberal and Social Democratic parties led to some changes in the rules. Nevertheless, there is still a feeling on these Benches that the rules are being abused by the authorities. During our debate on that late night in December 1982 when we discussed the rules, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said:
There is continuing discrimination and a continuing mixture of sexual and racial discrimination. Let there be no doubt: these proposals are not putting women on an equal basis with men. Let there be no doubt that they are deeply damaging to the interests of people who are settled here." —[Official Report, 15 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 358.]
As the Minister said in reply to a recent letter of mine, the problem is that there is no absolute criterion. On 9 January, he said:
Each application must be examined individually." —[Official Report, 19 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 437.]
That leads inevitably to a free rein for subjectivity by immigration officers. Many young Asian women will be

prevented from marrying the men whom they want to marry, and these rules have had the effect of separating young people.
Recently the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, referring to the practical effects of the rules, said:
Intrusive and persistent questioning often takes place. Men are asked why they do not marry women in India. The couple's love letters may be examined. On one occasion at least they were found insufficiently affectionate.
What sort of way is that to treat people? If the Minister agrees with many of us that the rules are being abused and that the spirit of what he would wish for is not being observed, why does he not draft a circular and circulate that document to all officials so that we may be clear in our own minds precisely what the Government want and what they mean?

Mr. Corbyn: It would be very helpful if the Government published the guidance notes that they give to immigration officers and to high commissions and embassies abroad so that we could see the tone of and the method by which the interviews are conducted.

Mr. Alton: I agree, and I should like to see that information placed in the Library of the House so that hon. Members could get some idea of the advice being given. If the spirit of what the Minister has been saying were observed, it might well remove many people's anxieties and fears that there is too much subjectivity based on misinformation and a lack of written guidance.
The rules have also led to the demeaning process whereby registrars of marriages now uniquely ask Asian citizens to produce passports before their weddings. That, too, is a disgraceful intrusion into people's personal lives.
I turn to another aspect which I raised recently with the Minister in a number of letters to him and in parliamentary questions. It concerns the use of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. Under that Act many immigrants are excluded from help if they are non-Commonwealth citizens. I cite particularly the case of the 17,000 Vietnamese boat people who arrived here five years ago. One thousand came to Merseyside, and 450 were welcomed to the city of Liverpool. We welcomed them despite all the problems mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. We have very high unemployment there, but the boat people were welcomed with open arms because we were aware of their grave problems. Those people had been thrown on to the high seas and separated from their families and were in a great state of anguish.
Five years later, because they are non-Commonwealth citizens, along with the 2,000 Somalis and the 40,000 Liverpool-born fifth generation blacks who live in the area, finance and specialist help under the Act is not made available. Five years later many of these people are isolated, lonely, jobless, scattered about the place and in many cases suffering from hepatitis, cataract, glaucoma, worm, tuberculosis and lactose intolerance. All are prevalent in their community. They are three times more likely than members of the indigenous community to require professional social service support, because 95 per cent. of them are without jobs and most of them have learnt little English. The original policy of dispersal to certain areas has been an abysmal failure. The Government believe that out of sight is out of mind. I am certain that the Government should not only look at the


problem of that community, but think in terms of extending section 11 of the 1966 Act to cover this particular group of forgotten people.
The Government have succeeded in undermining the already fragile security of black people in Britain by enacting statutes that enshrine racist divisions. They have opened yawning chasms between our different communities. It is legislation which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has said, has been condemned by many people.
Nationality is a fundamental human right. It defines who belongs to the nation and who enjoys the rights of equal citizenship. British nationality should be granted automatically to everyone born in British territory.
Immigration control should be exercised on the basis of objective criteria and applied without discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. An independent judicial officer should be appointed with power to intervene to speed up cases and appeals. Alleged illegal immigrants should have the right of appeal. If they deny the illegality, they should not be imprisoned while their cases are being considered. They should be charged in the normal way if there is reasonable cause to suspect the commission of an offence, and appeals should be judged on the circumstances prevailing on the date of the appeal, not on the date of the original decision.
That is the kind of approach that the Government should adopt. It is not an approach that is demonstrated by the way that they have been proceeding during the past live years. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting with the official Opposition.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and the House will be grateful to me for not discussing my surgery immigration case load, as other hon. Members have done with theirs this evening. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's assumption that there is clearly no support from people settled in this country, whatever their origins or colour, for further widespread immigration. Anyone living here has an equal interest in ensuring that we have enough housing, employment and other social provisions for the people who are already here. So it is to everyone's benefit that we have tight immigration rules to protect that interest.
However, any immigration policy must treat all citizens fairly, if the need for tight rules is to be respected. It is clearly right that those who are accepted for settlement here have the right to bring in wives and dependants. Equally, they should have the right to receive visitors, care for their parents and choose their marriage partners from abroad. It is reasonable that those legitimate rights, while being safeguarded, are not allowed to be exploited by those who circumvent the rules designed to achieve the overall object of limiting entry into this country.
I represent a constituency where 15 per cent. of the population is of Asian origin, and all too often I see the problems that arise when rights conflict with rules. It is important that the two are kept in balance, because neglect of one will encourage abuse of the other.
There are two ways, one of which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned earlier, in which rules are seen to interfere with rights. The first is the interpretation of the rule stating that elderly dependants must have no other close relatives in their own country to turn to before they can be admitted to join relations here, and the second

involves the rule requiring that married partners must have met. In several cases, the first seems to force parents or grandparents to live with a relative in the subcontinent regardless of potential family conflict that may arise or any animosity that may already exist. It is natural, particularly in the Asian culture, that people settled here should wish their elderly dependants to be here as well, and for them to be as well cared for as possible in their remaining years. If their own well-being in this country has been enhanced and their standards of living raised, it is not unreasonable for them to wish their parents to share that well-being and enhanced social status. Where the resources for that provision emanate from a relative in the United Kingdom, it is surely not unreasonable to allow them to live here, even if there is another close relative at home who may not have the same resources in terms of cash arid accommodation, and may not even have the same interest.
To implement a change in the rules to this effect is hardly likely to lead to jumbo-jetloads of elderly dependants landing at Heathrow, given an understandable hesitation to settle in a new country and different culture at so late a stage in life. I know of many people in Bradford who came here but did not stay. They could not settle and did not like the change in culture or life in this country.
The requirement that fiancés and fiancees should have met provokes irritation among the Asian community, not only because it is deemed to be a prohibitivly expensive obstacle that is unnecessary, given the other considerations governing the entry of male fiancés, but because it is directly aimed at an institution that is an inherent part of their culture.
The practice of bringing in a fiancé from the Indian subcontinent will gradually diminish in frequency as the generation of girls born here find males among their own community and consequently avoid all the difficulty and expense of finding a suitable fiancé abroad. However, given the operation of the primary purpose rule, I hope that the Government will look again at the requirement that a couple should have met, and not worry that it would lead to widespread abuse of the marriage rules. In my view, both those changes are consistent with the Conservative party's commitment to the family and to equal opportunity.
As a new generation of people of Asian origin grow up in our schools alongside their white contemporaries, they will be aware, and less tolerant, of any injustices in the system that appear directly to affect them but not the rest of the community. I trust that the Government and the Conservative party will ensure that the rules are kept constantly under review to take account of changing circumstances, changing pressures and changing perceptions.

Mr. Eric Deakins: It was a pleasure to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler). It was a liberal strand in our debate, although unfortunately the party that he supports, and which I am sure he will support in the Lobby tonight, does not share his views. His is the party that introduced—and still believes in—discriminatory immigration rules designed to keep out coloured people. He may say, and I would agree, that that is inevitable with a Right-wing Tory Government. My own ethnic minority voters, certainly in Walthamstow, realise that, and I benefit from their support accordingly.
The motion that we are debating talks about undermining family life. The rules that the House has approved in the past few years are unworthy of a society that calls itself civilised. Many of the men who are separated from their families in south Asia and other parts of the New Commonwealth are making a substantial contribution to the British economy. They are not scroungers on the welfare state, as many Conservative Members would like us to believe, to judge by some of the speeches that grab the headlines in the popular press. They are people who often do unpleasant work, work unsocial hours, work in the public sector and maintain services that would not otherwise be maintained.
The Government are being hypocritical. In the last two elections they proclaimed their commitment to family life, but these immigration rules contain no right to family reunification, except in respect of the nuclear family—that is, a spouse and children up to the age of 18. The rules impose our cultural norms on, in particular, Asians coming into Britain. It is a form of cultural imperialism. The Asian concept of the extended family is one that we used to enjoy and benefit from in Britain. For a variety of sociological and economic reasons it has now disappeared completely. One purpose of the rules is to keep out the concept of the extended family, because that would shame us into recognising that our commitment to the family is not as strong as that of the Asians.
The rules say nothing at all about the welfare of children being a paramount consideration when cases are considered. I should have thought that in a civilised society that should concern us. There are grave difficulties overseas and in Britain when Asians, in particular, have to prove relationships at ports of entry to entry clearance officers or immigration officers who are at best sceptical, often suspicious, and, occasionally, at worst paranoid in the form of questioning that they adopt. There are obviously from time to time discrepancies in the answers given by various people on various occasions. But under the stress of questioning, how many white families in similar circumstances would not be making similar mistakes to those of the Asians?
The interview for Asians families at both entry clearance posts overseas and at ports of entry in Britain is a minefield through which applicants stumble. Often they are blown up and then they are sent back or their application is refused. Consider the circumstances. At United Kingdom ports of entry immigrants arriving from south Asia have had a long journey. They are suffering from jet lag and are in a strange environment. Many of them have never travelled more than a few miles from their village before, yet they have come thousands of miles to another continent where they are immediately subjected to intensive questioning. The same sort of thing happens at overseas posts, where the interview often takes place hundreds of miles from the family home.
People are disoriented. It is no wonder that from time to time they make mistakes and give answers which confirm the suspicions of entry clearance officers. Intensive questioning proceeds almost as if the people are guilty of some sort of crime, but, unlike what happens with criminals and suspected criminals in police custody in Britain, there are no judges' rules for immigrants. At least, there are none that I know of. I should like to know if there are any.
In any body of people in our society, which will often have institutionalised racism, there must be some racism and racist attitudes. That goes for all Governments, not merely the present one. We have seen that in the police force. The independent Policy Studies Institute report makes it clear that there are many racist attitudes, in particular at lower levels in the police force. Therefore, is it not conceivable and highly probable that similar racist attitudes exist among immigration officials and entry clearance officers, even though they are not aware of it? I am accusing them not of deliberate racism, but of unconscious racism. That is reinforced because they are operating within the racist structure of the immigration rules. The whole purpose is to keep blacks out and to deny family reunification unless the obstacle course can be survived.
In reply to questions recently, the Minister said that there were training courses and that efforts were being made to ensure that there was no racism among immigration officials and entry clearance officers. We welcome that, but there cannot be the major improvement that is necessary while people have to operate within a structure of racist rules and institutionalised racism in Britain.
The question will not go away. Harking back to the record of previous Labour Governments will not help the Government or Asian families. Such families are looking for a humane and civilised response in this debate, and I hope that they will get it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have been an immigrant to the United States, and I have been occasionally embarrassed and humiliated. I had ministerial responsibility for the resettlement here of Ugandan Asians and I am chairman of the Indo-British Association.
I say straight away that the immigrants have brought a great benefit to our country. At the bottom of the Statute of Liberty in New York harbour there is a phrase written by an unknown immigrant:
We came not empty-handed here, we brought a rich inheritance.
I believe that that is true of this country too, and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State shares that sentiment.
I wish to make three points only. On a recent journey to India, I made some inquiries about the treatment that is given to aspiring immigrants. I am bound to say that there is discontent, as there must be. There has been an improvement in recent years. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in his speech amply documented that improvement. The system is more efficient, clearer and more humane.
My second point concerns one of my constituents. I put it in the form of a complaint, but it is not a complaint directed to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, or, indeed, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because I know of no Members who are more touched by humanity and courtesy in the manner in which they handle the many immigration inquiries directed to them. The complaint concerns a Royal Air Force squadron leader. He has served in Belize, and is now in the Falkland Islands. He is an expert engineer, knowledgeable on Jaguars and Harriers, and by any measure a great asset to the Royal Air Force. He received a renewal of his British passport in Belize when he was serving with the Harrier


squadron. Recently, he wanted to visit his family in Kenya. The Kenya embassy insisted that a right of abode stamp should be placed in his passport, or that a letter from the Home Office should be provided, stating that he would be allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom, before it would issue him with a visa. This is what transpired. He went to the passport office in Petty France, and informed the office that he was a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force. He showed his military identity card, RAF form 1250, and a valid NATO travel order. He was informed that, on that basis, he could enter the United Kingdom at any time, but that he would have to go to the Home Office in Croydon to have his passport stamped. He went to Croydon, and explained to the Home Office staff that he had obtained his British passport in Belize. He showed the Home Office staff in Croydon his military documents, which were photocopied. The Home Office staff agreed that he could enter the United Kingdom at any time on the strength of his military papers. I quote the squadron leader's letter:
However, on further questioning and ascertaining that my parents were born in India, I was told, quite categorically, that I will have to produce proof that I have been in the United Kingdom for the past five years.
The squadron leader was horrified. He said:
I felt ashamed and humiliated. I requested to see someone in authority, but was told that that was not permitted. I further requested the Home Office staff to phone the Royal Air Force Personnel Management Centre to confirm that I was a commissioned officer in the RAF and that I had joined the service in 1971; this too was rejected.
Suddenly, the squadron leader's military documents, and the fact that he had entered the United Kingdom on several occasions merely by producing them, were of no consequence. He therefore had to travel back to his home in Suffolk in my constituency to collect certificates of pay and tax deductions dating back to 1971, and to get hold of his university certificates to prove that, prior to 1971, he had obtained a degree at London university. He then had to travel to Norfolk to obtain a formal letter from his station commander, giving a detailed account of all the Royal Air Force stations at which he had served in the intervening years. What angered him most—my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will appreciate this—is that as a result he missed No. 3 squadron mess night at Gütersloh in Germany.
When I came into the matter I was told that the squadron leader was in the Falkland Islands. I was asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's private office to obtain the squadron leader's date of birth. I cannot obtain his date of birth because he is in the Falkland Islands. I am not prepared to upset his wife again. As the Home Office interviewed the man, and photocopied all his papers, it has all that information in its possession. I do not understand how the Home Office cannot deal with the case and can say that it does not have the man's date of birth.
The Home Office has been provided with all the documents that the squadron leader obtained—his birth certificate, his tax certificates, his pay certificates, his university degree and a letter from his station commander —and yet it still asks me to provide his date of birth.
These days it must be easier to transfer information between the Home Officer and the Ministry of Defence than it is for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament to obtain information from Port Stanley. These days, when any

rookie reporter or young police officer can obtain the information within half an hour, I find it astonishing that the Home Office is incapable of doing so.
I mention this case for one reason only —to show that things can go wrong occasionally even in the best of bureaucracies. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will deal with this matter in his usual courteous way. I should not like my hon. and learned Friend to think for one moment that I pay the slightest attention to the absurd motion that we are debating. In his speech he pulverised the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I shall, with the greatest of pleasure, go into the Lobby to support my hon. and learned Friend and the Home Secretary in the excellent job that they are doing for our country.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I fully support the motion. I felt that when the Minister spoke, he was entirely evading the issue of the way in which families are treated and broken up because of the operation of the immigration rules, and the heartbreak and misery that that causes. I make no apology for mentioning the heartbreak and misery caused to people in my constituency and in many others.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) spoke. He probably represents the more honest and truer face of the Tory party when he spoke the usual racist pap about immigration causing problems and pretending that the unemployment figures in the west midlands were caused by immigration. He was in effect saying that the cultural changes that have taken place because of immigration are unacceptable. I find his remarks offensive and unacceptable, as do people in many parts of the country, who live happily in a multicultural, multiracial environment and who are not prepared to put up with that kind of bigotry.
When Conservative Members say that the immigration rules are for the benefit of the ethnic minority communities, I fail to see how they can justify that or to whom they have been speaking to get those views. If they spent a little time talking to some of the families that are broken up and deliberately divided by the operation of the immigration rules, they might have a different attitude.
I feel that these problems caused by the operation of the immigration rules are serious. First, I feel—I hope the Minister will answer this point—that it is important that the guidance notes issued to embassies, high commissions, immigration officers and entry clearance officers should be published and made available so that we can know the circumstances under which such interviews take place. There should be a verbatim report of the interviews, which should be made available to Members of Parliament if they wish to see it, so that we can see the circumstances under which those interviews take place in different parts of the world.
The Minister endlessly quoted statistics on the length of the waiting lists now, in 1978, in 1977 and other dates. That shows that the waiting lists have been far too long at all times. They are completely unacceptable. The Minister should be saying what he is doing to remove the waiting lists for interviews.
I know of families who are divided because they must wait up to two or three years for interviews, and I am far from happy about the circumstances under which the interviews take place. People must make lengthy journeys


to visit the high commission or the embassy for their interview and peculiar requests are made for documentary proof of their birth and marriage, when in some places no such records exist.
The attitude of immigration officers at the airport is neither straightforward nor even handed. If hon. Members were to go to Heathrow and observe the treatment that black families from Africa, people from Asia, Bangladesh or the West Indies receive and compare it with the treatment given to South Africans, Australians or New Zealanders, they would not tell me that there was no racism there. If anyone tells me that, clearly he has never been to Heathrow and examined the procedures that lead to institutional racism.
The approach at the interview is wrong because the onus of proof is on the interviewee to show that he is a bona fide visitor. He is treated virtually as a guilty subject until he can prove his innocence. It should be the other way round. The Home Office would do everyone a favour if it published the number of people who, having been refused entry, are deported from Heathrow and other airports, and the number who are fortunate enough to contact a Member of Parliament or somebody who can do that for them and gain entry.
The Home Office fails completely to understand the political circumstances that face many people who come to Britain. I have received a number of contradictory letters from the Home Office, on the one hand saying that the position in Sri Lanka is normal, and on the other hand saying that there are problems for some of the community in Sri Lanka if they are deported back to that country. Hon. Members deserve an explanation from the Minister about the position in Sri Laka and other politically divided and troubled parts of the world. He must give the House a statement of the Government's attitude to applications from residents of such countries for political refugee status.
Although the debate is brief, it is extremely serious because it affects fundamentally the human rights of many people in Britain. These regulations cause misery and heartbreak, yet the Minister's only answer is to trade around with half-baked statistics. He must answer our criticism that his rules divide and break families, and insist that children, who have never seen a country, are deported to it without so much as by or have your leave.

Mr. Max Madden: If there are doubts about the injustice and unfairness of the immigration laws, rules and administrative procedures, they are discounted by examining a simple set of statistics for passengers refused entry, by nationality, in 1982. That is the last year for which such figures are available. From the old Commonwealth, it was one in 5,344, from the United States of America it was one in 3,654 and from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan it was one in 159.
The Minister accused the Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of stirring. The debate, initiated by the Labour party, reflects the deep anxiety that exists among ethnic minorities about the matter. In July 1983, when the Home Secretary visited Bradford, the Bradford Council for Mosques presented him with a memorandum which said:

The relatives of the ethnic minorities are treated unfairly when they make applications for the Visa/Entry Certificate and very many visitors receive a hostile reception when they arrive in Britain, with unnecessary and awkward questions and unreasonable delays".
When the Minister visited Bradford a fortnight ago and held a stormy meeting, those complaints and many others were made to him very forcefully by Bradford's Asian community.
The truth is that the ethnic minorities in Britain very much resent the way in which the laws, rules and administrative procedures are operated against them. The reality is that black and Asian people are fundamentally unwelcome in this country. The laws, rules and procedures are designed to exclude as many of them as possible. Numerous references have been made today to the primary purpose test. That very objectionable test was clearly changed recently to meet the demands of the Conservative party's Right wing.
By the third quarter of 1983, 17 per cent. of husbands and 49 per cent. of fiancés from the Indian subcontinent were being refused on that ground. That ground also accounted for 50 per cent. of husband refusals and 83 per cent. of fiancé refusals. However, in 1982, only 12 per cent. of applications were refused because of primary purpose, and only 18 per cent. of all refusals were made on that ground. That makes the case for the reason why the test was changed and the harsh way in which it has been administered.
We have also heard many complaints about the situation in Bangladesh. In an intervention, I mentioned the independent studies that had been made in the past of the refusals given in Bangladesh. In 1977, the Runnymede Trust found that, of 58 different applications that had been refused, 55 were genuine. A study carried out by the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service in 1981 showed that, of 35 families who had been refused permission to join their husbands and fathers in the United Kingdom, 34 contained genuine applicants. I also welcome the study that the Bradford law centre is to make into the situation in Bangladesh, which continues to deteriorate.
I turn briefly to the conduct and content of the interviews for entry clearance. Much concern has been expressed tonight about the way in which such interviews are conducted. I urge the Minister to reconsider the provision of tape recordings and transcripts from such interviews, so that we can all see how they are conducted. I also urge him to ensure that the highly subjective views and conclusions of entry clearance officers can be examined against the transcript, and to dispense with refusals that are based on a recourse to public funds. It is outrageous that people who have the misfortune to be unemployed or inadequately housed in Britain should be prevented from marrying or having their would-be spouses here.
Objections have been raised to nationality fees. An overwhelming case can be made for the fees to be reduced, for them to be paid only when the application is considered — not when it is submitted — for the delays to be reduced and for the police to be removed from such inquiries.
This debate is important and reflects the considerable concern of the black and Asian communities in Britain about the way in which they are being treated. If the way in which they are treated over immigration is coupled with


the way in which they are discriminated against in housing, jobs and education, the extent to which they are harassed by the police, and the difficulties that they have in DHSS offices and the NHS, it amounts to gross discrimination against black and Asian people in this country and their relatives from overseas. We wish to see the Government return to the commitment that they made in the 1979 general election to support and hold a firm belief in the family. Their immigration policies contradict the commitments that they then gave to the electorate.
I hope that the Government will ensure that the laws, rules, and administrative procedures are observed with humanity and conducted with great discretion.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Health): We have had a short but extremely important debate. It is not about a taradiddle of statistics such as the Minister gave us, but about real people suffering from humiliation overseas and at ports of entry here.
The Minister dismissed the personal cases which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) cited. That was typical of the approach that we are condemning. Each case is a personal tragedy for some family. That is the only way to deal with the matter. If any Government of which I was a member were to blame I must accept respnsibility. Today we are concerned with the operation of the rules today. Ministers responsible for the rules probably have the most difficult job in Government, and entry clearance officers also have a difficult job, but that does not excuse them for allowing inhuman, indecent treatment to be meted out.
When telling us of the number of cases involved, the Minister failed to interpret the figures. Applications from Asians have halved since 1978. The number of officials dealing with the applications has increased by 25, yet the waiting list is the same. The facts are against the Minister's statistical case, but I do not want to become involved in the statistical game.
Last week the Church of England Synod decided by 260 votes to nil:
That this Synod, believing the 1981 British Nationality Act involves the treatment of individuals and families in a manner not in keeping with Christian teaching, requests the Standing Committee in conjuction with the Board of Social Responsibility to make representations to Her Majesty's Government for the reform of this Act and the relating Immigration Rules.
The operation of the Act abroad and at Heathrow cannot be justified by the moral or ethical principles of any religion embraced by any Member of the House, or by anyone else. The operation of the Act totally contradicts Christian teaching on the sanctity of family life. It contradicts Jewish ethics and is certainly offensive to the Moslem religion.
It is no wonder that the Bishop of Birmingham, when proposing that motion, said that his objection was that our immigration rules and practices were
racist in intention, often unfair in execution and divisive of families.
That is true.
Today we witnessed the spectacle of a Minister telling the Church that it should take a holiday from politics during Lent. We want Ministers to implement Christian principles in the application of immigration rules. One cannot profess a faith, whatever it is, and divorce it from one's actions and the effect that they have on family life.
When the Prime Minister went to Hungary she rightly complained loudly about the treatment of a Scottish person who is not allowed out of that country. Does the Prime Minister know that such treatment is being meted out every day of the week at entry clearance ports here, and overseas? How can the Prime Minister make such complaints when every day such offensive treatment is being meted out to fiancés and elderly relatives in Britain and elsewhere in a manner that she so rightly condemns behind the iron curtain? We are offering Her Majesty's subjects these continuing humiliations, and I hope that the whole House will condemn that.
There is discrimination in the way in which visitors are treated when they arrive here. A recently published Church of England document about the case of Lucille Andrews, a British-born Jamaican married to James Brown, a pastor in the Pentecostal church, shows that he was refused permission even to come and visit his wife or her family here because the entry clearance officer, having read Mr. Brown's letters to his wife, decided that they were not sufficiently affectionate.
There are no circumstances in which the Minister would allow his letters to his wife, intimate love letters, to be read by an official. That being so, he has no right to allow anybody else's letters to be read in such circumstances. If the Minister wishes to defend such a disgraceful state of affairs, let him get up and do so. That was not an exceptional case. I could cite others. It is happening every day in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and the West Indies. I regard that behaviour as obscene. It should not be tolerated for five minutes by any British Home Office Minister, yet such incidents are happening all the time.
White visitors to Britain receive absolutely different treatment from coloured visitors. I have written to the Home Office about what happened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, 'when returning from Israel in December, was held up for 10 to 15 minutes in a queue of British citizens. When he arrived at the front of the queue he discovered that he had been held up because two of the British citizens happened to be coloured. They were cross-examined and nothing was found to be wrong. After they had gone through, everybody behind them in the queue went through without one question being asked, simply because all the rest were white. Such a thing is a scandal.
Coming nearer home, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, last week I celebrated a wedding in this place, and you were kind enough to attend. Three of my visitors came from Lusaka, New Orleans and Boston. They were allowed in without one question being asked, and that was right. When I arrived home, the details of two urgent cases awaited me. They concerned visitors to families in my constituency who had been refused entry. Another case was presented to me at 1 o'clock one morning; I was telephoned because somebody was to be returned unless a Member of Parliament could be obtained, even in the middle of the night. Those people were in difficulty because they were coloured, and for no other reason.
That state of affairs is indefensible. I blame not the immigration officers, but Home Office Ministers. They should have made it crystal clear to the immigration officers that the rules of this House, as we pass them, say that there shall be no discrimination of any sort between people of one ethnic origin and another. Yet from experience I can prove that discrimination is occurring all the time.
No American visitors to this country are asked the sort of questions that coloured people are asked, such as, "Who paid for your ticket?" "Do you know the details of the family you are visiting?" "What does you father do for a living?" and "How much does he earn?" How many American visitors are asked offensive questions such as that? The Home Office knows that the answer is none. If American visitors were asked such questions there would be uproar throughout the land, and rightly so. Those of us who believe that we have some religious basis to our being, to our political being, have every right to complain bitterly about what is happening.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I accept that morally we should probably all endorse the view that everyone should be treated equally. I suggest, however, that the right hon. Gentleman addresses himself to the practical problems that would arise if we allowed people to come to Britain from all over the world and treated them equally, as though they were British. The problem of congestion in this overcrowded island would make life impossible. America, Australia and many other countries do not allow completely free, morally equal entry.

Mr. Howell: I can speak only for myself; I would not dream of speaking for anyone else. As a constituency Member living in Birmingham and associating closely with those of all ethnic origins, I try to treat everyone equally. I think that we have all tried to do that. I do not agree that there is a case for discrimination.
Two years ago I went to Pakistan with more than 20 cases in my file, some of which I had been dealing with for four to five years. I travelled from Islamabad to Morappur. Some of those whom I wanted to meet had been sent back to Morappur. I was able to clear up 75 per cent. of the problems in the cases that had been held up for four to five years. Surely something must be terribly wrong when a Member has to travel to Morappur to make progress with these applications.
In one instance a lady had been refused entry into Britain to join her husband because she had told the immigration officer that it took four hours to walk from her village to the post office to collect his letters. The immigration authorities would not believe her and they would not go to the village. My companions and I went to the village and when I spoke to the head people of Morappur they said, "Come outside and we shall show you." We were taken up a hill and we looked across the valley. The lady used to walk only a short distance to the post office, but after the building of the Bangla dam and the filling of the lake she had had to walk for four hours around the lake to collect her husband's letters. She had spoken the gospel truth. Why was it necessary for a British Member of Parliament to go there to ascertain the truth? Why was it not possible for the issue to be dealt with by those on the spot? They knew perfectly well that the case was genuine.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Howell: No, I shall not give way.
Secondly, the application of one of my constituents, a Mr. Ralph, for his twins to come to Britain was refused on the ground that they were not identical. Blood tests and other tests were carried out. I saw the twins when I went

to Pakistan and I saw the people from their village. The case continued for almost another two years after my return until I discovered that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was to go to Islamabad. When he was there—I am grateful to him for this—

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): I was not there.

Mr. Howell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman went there. It must have been another Foreign Office Minister. During the Minister's brief visit, I arranged for the head people of the village, the schoolteachers who educated the children and even the midwife who delivered the children into the world to present themselves. The teachers brought along the children's school records. This assembly took place in the Minister's presence. He left and went on to Bangladesh and thereafter he was amazed to learn that the twins had not been granted an entry clearance certificate. It took almost another year for the certificate to be granted. At the end of the day the officials even tried to say that mysteriously a file had turned up on the father, a constituent of mine, and that he had been found to be an illegal immigrant.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Howell: That was proved not to be the case. I give those two examples from my experience. They are both accurate. I shall allow the Minister to intervene if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Whitney: The veracity of the right hon. Gentleman's identification that I made those village visits is almost on the level of most of his other statements. He knows very well——

Mr. Howell: I did not say that.

Mr. Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman did. The House is aware that I was invited to suggest that I was making a village visit. The right hon. Gentleman will know also that the entry clearance officers and immigration staff regularly visit the villages. Frequently, we must point out the errors in the right hon. Gentleman's letters to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Howell: I invite the Under-Secretary of State to give evidence of any errors I have made. I did not say he was going on a village visit. Obviously, his mind is closed. I said that during his visit to the embassy at Islamabad, I arranged for those families——

Mr. Whitney: rose——

Mr. Howell: Just a minute. During his visit to the embassy at Islamabad, I arranged for those families to see him. I am glad that he and his officials saw them. I can produce the letters in which the Under-Secretary of State said he saw those people, and then went on to Bangladesh.

Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to clarify the position. I make it clear to him that I have never visited Islamabad in my capacity as the Minister. He has got that and many other matters wrong.

Mr. Howell: Is the Under-Secretary of State saying that he did not recently visit Islamabad?

Mr. Whitney: Yes.

Mr. Howell: I am absolutely confounded. Since I went to see him about the case— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's words will be carefully examined against the letters he wrote to me about the case I have been pressing. Does he allege that I have not been corresponding with him about that case? The hon. Gentleman is rightly not saying anything.
In referring to appeals procedures, I take up the points of some of my hon. Friends who correctly say that our present system of control is unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office—two Ministers with knowledge of legal matters—know that the use of immigration tribunals or any other tribunal in this case would be unacceptable to any court of law. The people who prepare the statements are unavailable for examination or cross-examination, and we do not have full accounts of the interviews. I urge Ministers to look carefully into that system. Some of my hon. Friends have rightly said that tape recordings would go a long way towards removing many difficulties and misunderstandings and would enable us to reach a proper judgment. As the Home Office is now providing tape recorded evidence of interviews in this country—in cases in which people are suspected—it is reasonable to ask the Minister of State, Home Office to extend that practice.
Adjudicators ought not to be appointed and paid by the Home Office, as at present, but should be under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Birmingham lawyers feel strongly about the relationship between the adjudicators and the Home Office representatives. I am told that on one occasion an adjudicator was found to be playing backgammon with Home Office representatives. I do not wish to cast doubt automatically, but such practices should not operate in our immigration tribunals.
I shall write to the Home Secretary about that matter. When I was preparing for the debate, the information was given to me by respected solicitors in Birmingham that in the interval between cases adjudicators who should not be doing so were associated much too closely in the building with Home Office officials who permanently represented the Home Office's point of view. That is why I am sure that the Home Secretary and the Minister will agree that it is important that any tribunal should be seen to be fair, and the practice under which it operates should be fair.
We tabled the motion because the Government's immigration policy is causing great harm to their community relations policy. People who sit on police liaison committees, particularly Asians who are doing their best to promote harmony and to behave helpfully and constructively, are becoming more distressed by the cases that come up and the difficulties that are created for members of their community.
Why cannot we accept a system of guarantees? I have used guarantees in the years that I have represented Birmingham. I should like to make a non-controversial, helpful and constructive point. I understand the difficulties. All of us are trying to find a way out. If we could accept guarantees, especially for visitors, from members of the community who are not likely to go away, that would go a long way towards removing many of the problems.
However, we must press the motion to a vote because there can be no doubt that the operation of the existing

rules is increasingly causing offence to British citizens. All our citizens are entitled to be treated equally before the law in accordance with the moral precepts of this country.

Mr. Waddington: This has been an important debate, in which useful points have been made. I shall try to deal as quickly as possible with some of them.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) complained that some of his constituents were having to wait for five to 10 years to be reunited with their families. I emphasise that those are cases in which the claimed relationship has not been accepted. When those people's cases have been rejected by entry clearance officers, they have then availed themselves of their right of appeal, and the cases have been turned down on appeal.
The hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty with which we are now faced. For instance, in Bangladesh half the people in the non-priority queue are reapplicants. A high proportion of those reapplicants are those who admit that they made false statements in support of their original applications. The entry clearance officers find it difficult to assess whether those people are now telling the truth when they admit that previously they told lies.
As I mentioned, we have an appeals system. We live in an imperfect world, but can one devise a better system in an imperfect world than an initial decision by an entry clearance officer followed by the right of appeal to an impartial adjudicator? The hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as trivial discrepancies relied upon by entry clearance officers. The flavour of the interviews can best be obtained by reading some of the determinations of adjudicators. One does not often find trivial discrepancies relied upon any more than one finds such trivial discrepancies described in the letters that I often write to hon. Members setting out the reasons for decisions.
In reply to an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that he would like there to be more field trips. I have been on some of them, and I acknowledge that they can be useful. They are also enormously time-consuming, because often they prove abortive. However, we have taken the point on board.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an invitation to Oldham. I have not declined the invitation. I have invited the group in question to come to see me. However. I shall certainly look at the correspondence again. I spend much of my time addressing such groups in various parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said that he was glad that the waiting time for families had been reduced. We must all welcome that. It is partly due to the fact that we have recently increased our staff at the high commission in Dhaka.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that it was wrong to place the burden on the husband or fiancé who was applying for entry clearance. I cannot agree. The husband or fiancé is claiming the valuable right to come here, and it is surely reasonable to expect him to establish that right.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a constituent whose marriage had broken down and who was having to leave this country. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Labour Government introduced the first safeguards in 1977, they brought in the rule that, if a marriage broke down during the first year, the man would lose his right


to remain. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's constituent is caught by a rule introduced not by this Government, but by the Labour Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) mentioned the extensive rights in the hands of people who wanted to come or stay here. He is right, particularly if he is referring to the appeals system.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that the number of people who came here last year was insignificant — 14,000 from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. Last year, 27,600 were accepted for settlement here from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan.

Mr. Alton: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I do not have time to give way. We will check it afterwards.
We accepted for settlement last year 53,500 people from all over the world. Of those, 52 per cent. were from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. One may think that that figure is too large or not large enough, but it is certainly not insignificant.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke of the contribution made by ethnic minorities to our society. He was right to do so, and I agree with what he said. I delight at the fact that ever more members of those minorities are becoming enmeshed in the fabric of our society and are playing a larger role.
I was addressing myself to the motion, which is more than the hon. Gentleman was when he mentioned nationality fees. I cannot deal with that subject tonight. He said that people were increasingly held in detention at our airports. That is not correct. The reverse is the case. Many more are granted temporary permission to enter the country than was the case before 1979.
I know the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) for the ethnic minorities in his constituency, but we have to ask how many more people would come here if we drastically reduced the rules on husbands and grandparents.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) talked about granting the right of entry to the larger family, and he claimed that we were being stingy in granting it only to the nuclear family. I cannot accept that. It would be unreasonable to expect us, when we are accepting comparatively large numbers for settlement, to allow members of a much enlarged family unit also to come here.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point when he said that people arriving at London airport are often tired after a long overnight journey. I think that that is why we often hear stories of unfair questions being asked of immigrants. When a person arrives after that sort of journey he is not very tolerant about being questioned at all.
I will look in to the case of the squadron leader that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), although I gather that all is now well. The squadron leader was applying for the right to have the entitlement to abode stamp on his passport. We must try to check his files at Lunar house.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that I should explain what we are doing about the

queues. We are doing something about them. That is why we have increased the staff in Bangladesh. The hon. Gentleman said that he knew of families who had been waiting for two to three years to have interviews. That is simply not correct. Even in Bangladesh the waiting time for interviews is 20 months.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that there were fewer refusals to applications from the Old Commonwealth. There are, because the immigration pressures are coming from the New Commonwealth. We all know that, and that is why the refusal rate is larger there.
I apologise to my hon. Friends for not being able to reply to all their points.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 274.

Division No. 181]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dubs, Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)


Barnett, Guy
Ellis, Raymond


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Anthony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
George, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Golding, John


Campbell, Ian
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gourlay, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Thomas
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clay, Robert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cowans, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Cunningham, Dr John
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Kirkwood, Archibald


Lambie, David
McCartney, Hugh


Lamond, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Leadbitter, Ted
McGuire, Michael


Leighton, Ronald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
McKelvey, William


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor






McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.


McTaggart, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Soley, Clive


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Nellist, David
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


Penhaligon, David
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert


Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, M.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rees, Rt Hon M. ("Leeds S)
Wilson, Gordon


Richardson, Ms Jo
Winnick, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. James Hamilton and


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
 Mr. John McWilliam.


Rogers, Allan





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Aitken, Jonathan
Forman, Nigel


Alexander, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Galley, Roy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottom ley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gorst, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Greenway, Harry


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hampson, Dr Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, John


Coombs, Simon
Harris, David


Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Corrie, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hawksley, Warren


Dover, Denshore
Hayes, J.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hayhoe, Barney


Evennett, David
Hayward, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Heddle, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Barry


Fletcher, Alexander
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael





Hickmet, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Robert
Needham, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Hirst, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Normanton, Tom


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Philip


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Howard, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Charles
Powley, John


Jackson, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Norman
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lester, Jim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John.
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, David
Tapsell, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Terlezki, Stefan


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Moore, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)






Tracey, Richard
Watts, John


Trippier, David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Trotter, Neville
Wheeler, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Whitfield, John


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Whitney, Raymond


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Michael


Waldegrave, Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Bill (Tside N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wall, Sir Patrick



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. David Hunt &amp;


Warren, Kenneth
 Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Watson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 176.

Division No. 182]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodlad, Alastair


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gow, Ian


Ancram, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond


Ashby, David
Grant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Greenway, Harry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hannam,John


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, J.


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayhoe, Barney


Cockeram, Eric
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon
Henderson, Barry


Cope, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Hickmet, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Hicks, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hill, James


Dover, Denshore
Hind, Kenneth


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hirst, Michael


Evennett, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Holt, Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Hooson, Tom


Fletcher, Alexander
Hordern, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Howard, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Forth, Eric
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fry, Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Gale, Roger
Irving, Charles


Galley, Roy
Jackson, Robert





Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Ryder, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Neil
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maclean, David John.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Malone, Gerald
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Merchant, Piers
Terlezki, Stefan


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moore, John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trotter, Neville


Murphy, Christopher
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
van Straubenzee, SirW.


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Normanton, Tom
Walden, George


Norris, Steven
Walker, Bill (Tside N)


Oppenheim, Philip
Wall, Sir Patrick


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Ward, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Watson, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Watts, John


Parris, Matthew
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wheeler, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitfield, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Powley, John
Woodcock, Michael


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Yeo, Tim


Proctor, K. Harvey
Young, Sir George (Acton)






Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. David Hunt and



Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fiannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Golding, John


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan


Bermingham, Gerald
Gourlay, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Boyes, Roland
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kirkwood, Archibald


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lambie, David


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Cowans, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Craigen, J. M.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
Loyden, Edward


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Deakins, Eric
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Dubs, Alfred
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ellis, Raymond
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)





Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Nellist, David
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


O'Brien, William
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Patchett, Terry
Stott, Roger


Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Prescott, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Randall, Stuart
Tinn, James


Redmond, M.
Torney, Tom


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wallace, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Robertson, George
Welsh, Michael


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Gordon


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
 Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forrthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the operation of the Immigration Rules provides the right basis for a firm and fair immigration control which combines a necessary scrutiny of entitlement to settle here with respect and support for family life and proper treatment of visitors to this country.

SOMERSET HOUSE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the Grants for Guarantees of Bank Loans (Extension of Period) Order 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Question agreed to.

St. Mary Overy Wharf

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the intended demolition of St. Mary Overy wharf in the borough of Southwark in my constituency. I am only sad that the occasion that allows this debate to take place is the illness of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). At short notice he was unable to raise the matter that had been listed for the Adjournment tonight.
The demolition of the St. Mary Overy wharf was a matter that I had sought the leave of Mr. Speaker to debate as a matter of considerable urgency because the wharf will be demolished within weeks, if not days, unless the Secretary of State changes his mind.
I shall begin by describing the wharf and its historic importance and the circumstances leading to today, the nature of my application to debate the matter and my request to the Secretary of State to change his mind.
About a mile downstream from here on the opposite bank of the Thames is the oldest settlement south of the river—that part of the other side of the crossing that was originally by ford and later by bridge—the south side of London bridge. In early days Southwark—then in the county of Surrey—became a borough, and in 1295 it had become recognised as having a site of historic importance. The ancient and important priory of St. Mary Overy was built at that ford on the bank of the Thames. A trade grew up around the site which, in the middle ages, dealt in some things that we would not mention too often in this place. It was a place of entertainment for people leaving the city. It was the site of the Globe and other theatres and of bear and bull baiting. It was therefore a natural site in the last century for the construction of buildings with the newly arrived industrial and trading position of London. The port developed and its heyday, as the port of London, was at the end of the last century.
Over 100 years ago—1882–83—St. Mary Overy wharf was constructed beside the Thames, adjacent to where Southwark Cathedral now is, adjacent to the site of the palace of the bishops of Winchester and of the clink prison. That is the prison that gave its name to the phrase, "In the clink." People often use the phrase without realising where it originated.
Anyone who has been to that side of the river will realise that it has one of the most impressive townscapes in London, if not of any river or dockside in the country. The building constructed in 1882—83 was designed by George A. Dunnage, ARIBA. I describe the building in the way that the inspector who conducted the public inquiry three years ago did. He found as a fact that
the east and north facades facing the dock and river are elaborately detailed and are unlike others on the Thames. The south and west facades to the cathedral and Clink Street have more austere detailing. The building has eight floors including an attic and basement, with the ground floor raised above road level. A stair tower at the south-west corner rises above roof level.
St. Mary Overy wharf, like the buildings and the wharves at right angles to it along the river, only three years ago was found to be
in a reasonable structural condition for its age and structurally sound in the main.

There is no doubt that the building could survive and be refurbished if that were allowed.
The inspector continued:
The wharves along the river frontage of the site are prominent when viewed from the bridges to the west and east and from the river and north bank between the bridges. On the landward side, views are confined by the railway viaduct to the west and south and by solid cathedral to the east.
Indeed, to this day one can look down on the wharf from the railway line coming out of Waterloo or Charing Cross as it approaches London Bridge station. So important is the site that several years ago it was listed as a conservation area of particilar importance in the borough of Southwark. The area encompasses not only the wharf but the adjacent St. Mary Overy dock and the buildings round it. Since then many publications have been issued drawing attention to the importance of the site, which is now on the route of the Silver Jubilee walkway. On official guides and maps of London, the wharf and the dock are mentioned as buildings of particular importance.
The wharf overlooks a dock that remains to this day a place into which the tide flows in and out. The site was the subject of various planning applications made by the then prospective developers, European Ferries, at the beginning of this decade. Among the applications made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, one application was for consent to demolish what was by then a grade 2 listed building, designated as such by the Secretary of State for the Environment only a couple of years earlier.
As a result of the local authority's refusal to accept that the building should be demolished, a public inquiry was held from 30 June until 27 August 1981. The inspector reported to the Secretary of State, who issued his decision. The letter containing his decision bears the date 19 August 1982. Several schemes were the subject of interrelated planning applications, but I shall not confuse hon. Members. I shall concentrate on the one that would have involved the demolition of the St. Mary Overy wharf.
The inspector approved the scheme in general terms, and recommended that it be granted planning permission. However, the inspector did not recommend—indeed, specifically opposed—the demolition of the St. Mary Overy wharf. That decision was later reversed by the Secretary of State on the basis of the plan then put forward. However, it is because the plan has recently changed in one of its fundamental concepts that I believe it to be an appropriate subject for debate tonight.
In his report to the Secretary of State, the inspector wrote:
In my opinion, St. Mary Overy wharf fully merits inclusion in the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and the incorrect attribution of the building to George Dunning rather than George Dunnage in the listing description does not detract from its merits. It is an imposing building in a prominent location and, although at present dirty and dilapidated, will, if cleaned and repaired, reveal a wealth of colourful detail in a Queen Anne revival style. It is the only warehouse fronting the Thames which displays so wide a range of the eclectic detailing which typifies the style, while the more austere landward facades complement those of other earlier warehouses in Clink street. The internal structure, while of interest as an integral part of the building, does not in my view contain features which are of sufficient intrinsic value to merit preservation in their own right. The wharf is one of a tightly-knit group of Victorian warehouses, and the combination of tall buildings and narrow streets imparts an ambiance to the area which vividly captures the character of the riverside commerce of Victorian London. The Greater London Council, the Victorian Society, Save and others have in


my view rightly extolled the special townscape value of the area and the important contribution which it makes to the character and appearance of the wider outstanding conservation area.
The inspector went on to refer to the representations made to him by Save Britain's Heritage, the Royal Fine Art Commission and others, but that is why he said that the building should stay. He said that the proposal to demolish the listed building would remove a building that was making a very significant contribution to an outstanding conservation area. He concluded that the advantages did not override the strong presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building.
The Secretary of State considered that and overruled a decision that he had made only a year or two before, thereby setting a precedent. The Secretary of State said:
While recognising the intrinsic merits of St. Mary Overy wharf as a listed building and the contribution that this warehouse and the neighbouring wharves collectively make to the character of the conservation area, the Secretary of State feels that the argument for retaining this building must be weighed against the very considerable advantages that would accrue from the implementation of the scheme described above.
A fundamental part of that scheme was that the Discovery would be moored there. That was the ship in which Scott went to the south pole and which for many years has been part of London's heritage on the Thames. That nationally known and internationally recognized historic vessel was to have been an integral part of the site. Of late, it is clear that that vessel will go with other historic vessels to St. Katherine's dock on the other side of the river. The Maritime Society and other interest groups have supported the change of plans that takes the Discovery from where it might have been to St. Katherine's dock.
Instead of a vessel dating from the beginning of the century with particular links with London, a vessel which was laid up in the East India dock for many years before the last war and which was handed over to the London division of the Royal Naval Reserve, visible to everyone who went up and down the Thames, it is proposed to install a schooner, the Kathleen and May — no doubt an historic vessel—which has no links with London. That vessel took cement and coal between Oban, the Channel Islands and the Irish ports.
I understand that any smaller vessel than the Discovery does not require the dock to be widened to accommodate it as part of the scheme. When the change of plan was discovered, the relevant bodies associated with planning and restrictions, such as local borough councils, the GLC and all the interest bodies, complained. Some have written to the Secretary of State asking him to think again. The Victorian Society wrote to the Under-Secretary only a fortnight ago. It said:
I attach a letter to Neil McFarlane concerning the destruction of St. Mary Overy wharf. It is a shocking case and we do hope that you will ask a question in the House about it. We would be happy to give you further assistance.
The society is worried that the Discovery will not now be moored there. The Society states:
The necessary spoilation of the unique dockland area represents an affront to the enlightened approach to historic buildings embodied in recent legislation.
I accept that all that I can do tonight is seek to persuade the Secretary of State, through the Minister, not to revoke planning permission for the scheme and not to do anything that will detract from what has been agreed, and has the Secretary of State's approval, for the bulk of the scheme. The wharf is a small part of the total scheme.
The Secretary of State should think again whether it is necessary to demolish the wharf. My argument, and that

of many interest groups and others concerned with London's heritage, is that it is not. It would be a relief to them, and a great development in terms of the conservation of important buildings, if the Minister, now that one of the integral parts of the scheme as proposed has changed, would be brave and enlightened enough to think again. To do so would not detract from the potential benefit of the scheme that he saw when he gave planning permission and overruled the inspector two years ago. More important, it would deal with the unusual precedent that has been set by the Secretary of State of listing a building and then agreeing to the listing being taken away.
Planners and developers are concerned about the change of plan. The building had been listed and all the factors concerned with planning gain and so on had been taken into account. It was decided that a specific building must override those factors because of its importance and be retained, irrespective of the merits of the rest of the scheme. That has now happened. However, the scheme when proposed, was regarded by the Secretary of State as being of benefit.
The changed proposal was the result of an agreement and, later, of approval by the Secretary of State which was general in its nature in that it did not specify that the Discovery had to go there. It permitted a considerable variation from what I believe the Secretary of State contemplated at the time and certainly what the inspector and the public expected to happen. We have an opportunity tonight and in the coming few days, without detracting from the commercial, recreational and other benefits that the Secretary of State saw, to think again and reverse the decision on this building.
I accept that there might have to be some relatively small payment in damages to the developers. However, I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State must say, "I am revoking planning permission." He could vary the consent and say, "It is not now necessary, unless you can satisfy me that the Discovery or a vessel of equal national importance will be going there, that we should lose this important building."
An hour ago I came past the splendid building standing on the riverside casting its shadow on the Thames. The building has been there for 100 years. It is part of a particularly historic part of our city. It would be nothing less than a tragedy if, unnecessarily, it were now pulled down. The Secretary of State is the only person with the power to stop its demolition and so enhance the conservation of our heritage along the Thames. I beseech the Secretary of State, on behalf of thousands of people, of our city and of the nation, to think again.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The House will wish me to extend a sympathy to the hon. Friend of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), for the fact that he is ill and unable to initiate his Adjournment debate. We wish him a speedy recovery and a full return to the House as soon as possible.
The historic appraisal which the hon. Gentleman has given coincides with my understanding of the background to this important decision, which was made some years ago. I congratulate him on his grasp of the subject and the clear account he gave of how he sees the situation and the problems that affect his constituents.
I must point out at the outset that the location of historic vessels is not a prime planning matter for me. Most of these ancient vessels are owned by the National Maritime Trust, and the Discovery was not an integral part of the planning application, merely a possible idea. The Secretary of State's decision, therefore, does not, nor did it, depend on that detail, and it cannot be construed as a condition of the planning permissions or of those listed building consents which were given three or four years ago. At that time we confirmed support for the idea of a historic ship, the RMS Discovery or another, being berthed at the St. Mary Overy dock. It was not an integral part of the planning application. That must be put on the record fairly, straightforwardly and clearly. I am happy to note that the hon. Gentleman quoted the Victorian Society, for which I have endless admiration for the good and great works that it does. I shall make it my business to study its submission to my Department as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman has given a clear account of his concerns over the developments now taking place in the vicinity of St. Mary Overy dock, which comprises part of his constituency. The developments follow planning decisions made by the Secretary of State in August 1982. I shall come to those decisions shortly but, first, I shall make one or two general points.
There are clearly limits to what it is both appropriate and useful to discuss on the merits of particular decisions taken by my right hon. Friend from time to time. Planning decisions are taken quasi-judicially by the Secretary of State, commonly following on a public local inquiry, and on the basis of the inspector's report. Such a report takes into account the representations of the interested parties both for and against the particular proposals which have been submitted.
I must inevitably reiterate largely what is already known and published in the inspector's report and the subsequent decision letter. The appraisal in some detail of to decision letter is forbidden this evening because of constraints of time. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the letter of 19 August 1982. Certain paragraphs can be quoted as one sees fit, depending on which side of the argument one is. The decision letter and the inspector's report are as they should be. There are occasions—the St. Mary Overy proposals are an example—when my right hon. Friend does not agree with the inspector's view. It is well known that a decision to disagree with an inspector is not taken lightly or without careful consideration of all the factors.
Once a decision is taken, there are statutory periods when my right hon. Friend's decision can be challenged in law if it is thought that he has erred. Those periods have long expired in this instance and no notice of such a motion was served.

Mr. Simon Hugh: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he took the better part of 18 minutes out of the debate and if he wants a full reply I am more than happy to continue. The debate is limited to 30 minutes but, if he insists, I shall give way.

Mr. Hughes: I merely ask the Minister to confirm that the change in relation to the vessels was subsequent to any potential appeal time limit.

Mr. Macfarlane: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's attention was distracted. None of the original planning applications was an integral part of and dependent upon the location of the vessels. If he considers that he has been harshly dealt with, I shall write to him to confirm what I have said. If he reads fully the report of the debate that will appear tomorrow, he will understand what I am saying. It is important to understand that the time for appeal has expired and that no notice of such a motion was served by any of the interested parties upon my Department. The main issues centred on whether certain listed buildings and other non-listed buildings in a conservation area should be retained or demolished to allow new development to take place.
St. Mary Overy dock is a narrow inlet on the south bank of the Thames between London bridge and the railway bridge serving Cannon street station. It dates back to medieval times contemporary with Winchester palace, of which little, alas, remains. St. Mary Overy wharf, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, is located alongside the dock and fronts the Thames, Clink street and Cathedral street. The building was designed by George A. Dunnage and built in 1882 when London was a thriving port of Europe and of the world. It is an eight-storey building, including a basement and an attic with a stair tower rising above roof level. The dockside and riverside facades are ornate, with considerable modelling and much use of constrasting brickwork.
The building was listed as grade 2 and has long been disused. It has been left open on many occasions and has suffered two fires, the first of which removed the northern part of the roof.
In 1978, European Ferries Ltd. acquired the site from the previous owners, the proprietors of Hays wharf. The previous owners had held discussions over 10 years with the London borough of Southwark on the redevelopment potential of the site. I give this history to show the long period when the area was largely in decline. The entire area has been in decline for the better part of a century.
The owners made applications to the London borough of Southwark for listed building consent to demolish St. Mary Overy wharf and other adjacent wharves. Those applications were not determined by the council, and the owners appealed to the Secretary of State. They appealed also against the refusal by the London borough of Southwark to permit demolition and alteration of existing warehouses, the erection of a mixed development of offices, a museum and other uses, and alterations to St. Mary Overy dock. That became known as scheme A. It is important to touch on that point. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has done his homework on that study and knows what I mean by scheme A. He understands the decision letter of 19 August 1982, and has closely studied it on behalf of his constituents. This matter requires some understanding, because when looking through the back papers, the files and the complicated procedure, it is important to know precisely about what one is talking and the permutations of each of the schemes.
The matter was compounded, because the owners made four further applications to the London borough of Southwark for planning permission — one for the refurbishment of St. Mary Overy wharf and four other adjacent wharves, and, in addition, the complication of the demolition of two wharves and the erection of offices. We are dealing with an additional scheme, known as scheme B. As though that were not enough to comprehend, three


more applications sought listed building consent, either to demolition of or alterations to listed buildings, including St. Mary Overy wharf.
That is the complicated background of schemes A and B and three further applications. Hon. Members will understand the complexity of this matter.
The Secretary of State, using powers under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1972, called in those four applications for his decision and arranged for a public local inquiry into them and the appeals already made. That inquiry opened in June 1981 — a considerable time ago. That is another complexity. These decisions have largely been made, and the whole subject was thoroughly appraised by the interested parties.
Following the public local inquiry, the inspector reported to the Secretary of State. He recommended, first, that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission should be granted in respect of scheme A—the hon. Gentleman touched on that point—secondly, that the appeals in respect of the demolition of St. Mary Overy wharf and four other wharves should be dismissed and listed building consent should be refused; thirdly, that the application for listed building consent to demolish the majority of St. Mary Overy wharf should be refused; fourthly, that the application for planning permission in respect of scheme B should be refused; fifthly, that the application for listed building consent for the demolition of two other wharves and for the alteration of St. Mary Overy wharf should be granted.
In arriving at those recommendations the inspector in his conclusions said:
Scheme A has considerable advantages but the proposal entails the demolition of a listed building and other buildings which make a very significant contribution to an outstanding conservation area. The advantages do not in my view override the strong presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building.
The listed building to which he referred is St. Mary Overy wharf.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a different view. In the letter conveying his decisions, the reasons are clearly stated. I repeat those points, emphasising the theme in my own words. My right hon. Friend recognised that this site played an important role in the life and economy of central London, close to the City and London bridge station. Early regeneration of the site is of the utmost importance to provide employment opportunities and to halt progressive decay and dereliction. He agreed with the inspector's recommendation that scheme A should be permitted, that the mix of uses proposed was appropriate, taking full advantage of the riverside potential, and that the design was acceptable and sympathetic to the general surroundings. He recognised also the intrinsic merits of the grade 2 listed St. Mary Overy wharf and the four other unlisted wharves in the conservation area.
It was, however, necessary to weigh the advantages in conservation terms against the benefits that would be derived from the implementation of the redevelopment proposals. These benefits would include the general enhancement of the riverside environment, the improved presentation of the remains of Winchester palace, the enlivening of the area for tourists and the general public and the general suitability of the mix of development proposed.
In the light of those factors, my right hon. Friend concluded that the proposals offered opportunities and advantages of a nature and scale sufficient to justify overriding the normal presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building. Accordingly—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.